Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-3
Figure 4.9-1 Surface Water in Berkeley

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

4.9-4
Figure 4.9-2 FEMA Flood Zones within Berkeley

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-5
Dams and Levees
Failure of the Summit Reservoir and the Berryman Reservoir, located east of Berkeley, could impact inundation downhill of the reservoirs. Summit reservoir is located in the City of El Cerrito and would impact areas between Grizzly Peak Boulevard and The Alameda. The Berryman Reservoir, adjacent to Codornices Park, could potentially inundate a large portion of Berkeley, including neighborhoods between Hopkins and Cedar Streets and in North and West Berkeley, especially at Aquatic Park, and areas east of the I-80 freeway (City of Berkeley 2001).

Tsunami and Seiches
A tsunami is a series of waves generated by an impulsive disturbance in the ocean or in a small, connected body of water. Tsunamis are produced when movement occurs on faults in the ocean floor, usually during very large earthquakes. Sudden vertical movement of the ocean floor by fault movement displaces the overlying water column, creating a wave that travels outward from the earthquake source. An earthquake anywhere in the Pacific Ocean can cause tsunamis around the entire Pacific basin.

Seiches are waves generated in an enclosed body of water, such as San Francisco Bay, from seismic activity. Seiches are related to tsunamis for enclosed bays, inlets, and lakes. These tsunami-like waves can be generated by earthquakes, subsidence or uplift of large blocks of land, submarine and onshore landslides, sediment failures and volcanic eruptions. The strong currents associated with these events may be more damaging than inundation by waves. The largest seiche wave ever measured in San Francisco Bay, following the 1906 earthquake, was four inches high. In a low- likelihood storm scenario (1 in a 100-year flood event) which has a 26 percent chance of occurring at least once in 30 years, approximately 1,900 properties in Berkeley would be estimated to be affected by severe flooding (Risk Factor 2022).

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Water Act
In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), with the goal of “restor[ing] and maintain[ing] the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)). The CWA directs states to establish water quality standards for all “waters of the United States” and to review and update such standards on a triennial basis. Section 319 mandates specific actions for the control of pollution from non-point sources. The EPA has delegated responsibility for implementation of portions of the CWA, including water quality control planning and control programs, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).

Section 303(c)(2)(b) of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States based on the water body’s designated beneficial use. Water quality standards are typically numeric, although narrative criteria based upon biomonitoring methods may be employed where numerical standards cannot be established or where they are needed to supplement numerical standards. Applicable water quality standards are contained in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan).

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

4.9-6
Section 303(d) of the CWA bridges the technology-based and water quality-based approaches for managing water quality. Section 303(d) requires that states make a list of waters that are not attaining standards after the technology-based limits are put into place. For waters on this list (and where the USEPA administrator deems they are appropriate), states are to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDL). TMDLs are established at the level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards. A TMDL must account for all sources of the pollutants that caused the water to be listed.

Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of any pollutants into “waters of the United States,” except as allowed by permit. 33 Code of Federal Resources § 328.3(a)(3). Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for and regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands or other waters of the United States. Under the CWA and its implementing regulations, “waters of the United States” are broadly defined to consist of rivers, creeks, streams, and lakes extending to their headwaters, including adjacent wetlands.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) In California, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is administered by the SWRCB through the nine RWQCBs. Berkeley lies within the jurisdiction of SFBRWQCB (Region 2) and is subject to the waste discharge requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) (Order No. R2-2015-0049) and NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, which was issued on November 19, 2015 and went into effect on January 1, 2016. The MRP has expired and the SFBRWQCB is in the process of re-issuing the MRP. It is anticipated the new MRP will include new and more restrictive requirements which could expand the definition of regulated projects and add new requirements.

Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, Berkeley is required to use its planning authority to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and address increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects. These requirements are generally reached through the implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques and other controls (City of Berkeley 2011).

The MRP requires appropriate LID and Stormwater Treatment technologies in new development and redevelopment projects, to mimic the natural hydrology of the lands prior to disturbance. The objective of LID and post-construction BMPs for stormwater is to reduce runoff and mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by minimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover and then infiltrating, storing, detaining, evapotranspiring, and/or biotreating stormwater runoff close to its source. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing imperviousness to create functional and appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product. Practices used to adhere to these LID principles include measures such as rain barrels and cisterns, green roofs, permeable pavement, preserving undeveloped open space, and biotreatment through rain gardens, bioretention units, bioswales, and planter/tree boxes.
b. State Regulations
State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Permit The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercise the powers delegated to the state by the federal government under the Clean Water Act. Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must comply with the

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-7
requirements of the SWRCB Construction General Permit (Order 2012-0006-DWQ). Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration Documents (PRD) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. The PRDs are submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System website.

Applicants must
also demonstrate conformance with applicable BMPs and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection, and discharge points, general topography before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the city. The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. Additionally, the
SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants if there is a failure of the BMPs, and a sediment-monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Some sites also require implementation of a Rain Event Action Plan. The updated Construction General Permit (2012-0006- DWQ) went into effect on July 17, 2012 and requires applicants to comply with post-construction runoff reduction requirements (SWRCB 2017a).

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and each RWQCB as the principal agencies for coordinating and controlling water quality in California. Specifically, the Porter-Cologne Act authorizes the SWRCB to adopt, review, and revise policies for all waters of the state (including both surface and groundwater) and directs the RWQCBs to develop regional basin plans.

The SFBRWQCB has the authority to implement water quality protection standards through the issuance of permits for discharges to waters in its jurisdiction. Water quality objectives for receiving waters within Berkeley are specified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Basin Plan, prepared by the SFBRWQCB in compliance with the federal CWA and the Porter Cologne Act. The principal elements of the Basin Plan are a statement of beneficial water uses protected under the plan; water quality objectives necessary to protect the designated beneficial water uses; and strategies and time schedules for achieving the water quality objectives. Together, narrative and numerical objectives define the level of water quality that shall be maintained in the region. The water quality objectives are achieved primarily through the establishment and enforcement of waste discharge requirements (WDR).

The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for issuing WDRs. The RWQCBs may issue individual WDRs to cover individual discharges or general WDRs to cover a category of discharges. WDRs may include effluent limitations or other requirements that are designed to implement applicable water quality control plans, including designated beneficial uses and the water quality objectives established to protect those uses and prevent the creation of nuisance conditions. Violations of WDRs may be addressed by issuing Cleanup and Abatement Orders or Cease and Desist Orders, assessing administrative civil liability, or seeking imposition of judicial civil liability or judicial injunctive relief.

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

4.9-8
State Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Assembly Bill 1881)
The updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance required cities and counties to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 31, 2010 or to adopt a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). The City of Berkeley adopted the Bay-Friendly Landscape Ordinance in accordance with this requirement. The ordinance incorporates landscape protocols developed by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and all parameters in the WELO. The ordinance became effective as of February 1, 2010. In May of 2015, the governor issued Executive Order B-29- 15 requiring the state to revise the model WELO to increase water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, onsite stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. The last update to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance occurred on December 1, 2015. c. Local Regulations
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. The regional boards are required to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas in the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. Berkeley is within the jurisdiction of SFBRWQCB (Region 2).

The SFBRWQCB addresses region-wide water quality issues through the Basin Plan, updated most recently in March 2017. This Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of the state waters in Region 2, describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses, and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards established in the Basin Plan (SFBRWQCB 2017). The Water Quality Control Policy for the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California, as adopted by the SWRCB in 1995, also provides water quality principles and guidelines to prevent water quality degradation and protect the beneficial uses of waters of enclosed bays and estuaries.

Alameda County Clean Water Program
The City of Berkeley, along with 13 other incorporated cities in Alameda County, has joined with the ACFCD, the Zone 7 Water Agency, and Alameda County in the Clean Water Program (CWP) initiative.

Members of the program are regulated waste dischargers under the 2015 NPDES Permit issued by the SFBRWQCB and are responsible for municipal storm drain systems that they own or operate. As part of the permitting process, dischargers must submit a Stormwater Management Plan that describes a framework for management of stormwater discharges during the term of the permit (City of Berkeley 2011).

The City of Berkeley, as a co-permittee under the NPDES permit, is subject to the Provision C.3 requirements for new development and redevelopment projects, including post-construction stormwater management requirements. Provision C.3 requirements are separate from, and in addition to, requirements for erosion and sediment control and for pollution prevention measures during construction. All new development or redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces or 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface for special land use categories (i.e., uncovered parking lots, restaurants, auto service facilities, and gasoline

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-9
stations) are considered to be “regulated projects” and are required to implement site design measures, source control measures, and stormwater treatment measures to reduce stormwater pollution during operation of the project. The permit specifies methods to calculate the required size of treatment devices. All projects that create and/or replace 2,500 square feet or more but less than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface are required to meet site design requirements in Provision C.3.i of the MRP.

Regulated projects subject to stormwater treatment measures would require the implementation of LID f
eatures, such as harvesting and reuse, bioretention areas, pervious paving, green roofs, flow- through planters, tree well filters, and media filters. Systems must be designed to treat stormwater runoff volume equal to the 85th percentile 24-hour
storm event, 80 percent of the annual runoff
from the site, a flow design of runoff from a rain event equal to 0.2 inches/hour intensity, or an equivalent method (City of Berkeley 2011).

The City of Berkeley is shown as a solid gray area on CWP’s Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map (Alameda County 2022). According to the CWP, solid gray designates the land area between the hills and the tidal zone. The hydromodification standard and all associated requirements apply to projects in solid gray area unless a project proponent demonstrates that all project runoff will flow through fully hardened channels. Short segments of engineered earthen channels (length less than 10 times the maximum width of trapezoidal cross-section) can be considered resistant to erosion if located downstream of a concrete channel of similar or greater length and comparable cross-section dimensions. Plans to restore a hardened channel may affect the hydromodification standard applicability in this area. Only a small portion of the city, along Codornices Creek and in the Berkeley Hills, is subject to hydromodification measures, as determined by the CWP’s Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map. This would require projects in the hydromodification area that create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surface to match post-development stormwater flow rates and volumes to pre-development conditions.

City of Berkeley General Plan: A Guide for Public Decision-Making (2001) Applicable General Plan policies and actions related to hydrology and water quality are included in the Environmental Management Element and the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element.

Environmental Management Element Goal EM-4 promotes water conservation, improving water quality and restoring creeks. The Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element identifies areas of potential hazards in the city and includes goals and policies to improve safety with respect to natural disasters and environmental hazards such as flooding.

Environmental Management Element Policies and Actions
Policy EM-5: “Green” Buildings. Promote and encourage compliance with “green” building standards.

Policy EM-23: Water Quality in Creeks and San Francisco Bay. Take action to improve water quality in creeks and San Francisco Bay.

Action EM-23D. Restore a healthy freshwater supply to creeks and the Bay by eliminating conditions that pollute rainwater, and by reducing impervious surfaces and encouraging use of swales, cisterns, and other devices that increase infiltration of water and replenishment of underground water supplies that nourish creeks.

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

4.9-10
Policy EM-24: Sewers and Storm Sewers. Protect and improve water quality by improving the citywide sewer system.

Action EM-24E. Ensure that new development pays its fair share of improvements to the storm sewerage system necessary to accommodate increased flows from the development.

Policy EM-25: Groundwater. Protect local groundwater by promoting enforcement of state water quality laws that ensure non-degradation and beneficial use of groundwater.

Policy EM-26: Water Conservation. Promote water conservation through City programs and requirements.

Policy EM-27: Creeks and Watershed Management. Whenever feasible, daylight creeks by removing culverts, underground pipes, and obstructions to fish and animal migrations.

Action EM-27D. Restrict development on or adjacent to existing open creeks. When creeks are culverted, restrict construction over creeks and encourage design solutions that respect or emphasize the existence of the creek under the site.

Action EM-27G. Regulate new development within 30 feet of an exposed streambed as required by the Creeks Ordinance and minimize impacts on water quality and ensure proper handling of stormwater runoff by requiring a careful review of any public or private development or improvement project proposed in water sensitive areas.

Action EM-27 H. Consider amending the Creek Ordinance to restrict parking and driveways on top of culverts and within 30 feet of creeks.

Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element Policies and Actions Policy S-26: Flood Hazards Mitigation. Reduce existing flood hazards in Berkeley.

Action S-26A. Conduct periodic evaluation of reservoir safety and undertake actions necessary to mitigate the potential for dam failure.

Action S-26B. Continue to rehabilitate the City storm drain system to reduce local flooding caused by inadequate storm drainage.

Action S-26C. Continue and significantly strengthen programs promoting storm drain maintenance by public and private sectors.

Action S-26D. Continue to work with the East Bay Municipal Utility District to complete the planned seismic improvements to the Berryman Reservoir.

Policy S-27: New Development. Use development review to ensure that new development does not contribute to an increase in flood potential.

Action S-27A. Regulate development in the Waterfront flood-prone areas consistent with the Berkeley Waterfront Specific Plan.

Action S-27B. Ensure that new development conforms to requirements and guidelines of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Action S-27C. Require new development to provide for appropriate levels of on-site detention and/ or retention of storm water.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-11
Action S-27D. Regulate development within 30 feet of an exposed streambed as required by the Preservation and Restoration of Natural Watercourses (Creeks) Ordinance.

Policy S-28: Flood Insurance. Reduce the cost of flood insurance to property owners in the City.

Action S-28A. Identify, prioritize, and implement activities necessary to qualify for a high Community Rating System (CRS) evaluation under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Action S-28B. Update and revise flood maps for the city.

Action S-28C. Incorporate FEMA guidelines and suggested activities into City plans and procedures for managing flood hazards.

Berkeley Municipal Code
Four chapters of the City of Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) contain directives pertaining to hydrology and water quality issues:
 Preservation and Restoration of Natural Watercourses – Chapter 17.08. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate: (1) building over or near culverted creeks; (2) building near open creeks; (3) the rehabilitation and restoration of natural waterways; and (4) the management of watersheds.
 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control – Chapter 17.20. This chapter provides the stormwater requirements for projects conducted within the City of Berkeley and is consistent with the requirements of the San Francisco RWQCB and the MRP permit. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Berkeley’s citizens by eliminating non-stormwater discharges to the City’s storm drain system and by reducing the contamination of stormwater by pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.  Standards of Construction in Special Flood Hazard Zones – Chapter 17.12. The ordinance also ensures that property owners construct new and substantially improved buildings in the 100- year floodplain in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program’s goals to protect life and property. Section 500 of this chapter addresses standards of construction in special flood hazard areas. Section 530 addresses coastal high hazard areas vulnerable to future sea level rise.  Grading, erosion and sediment control requirements – Section 21.40.270. This requires projects to comply with all grading, erosion and sediment control regulations on file in the Public Works Department.

4.9.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Assessment of impacts is based on review of site information and conditions and City information regarding hydrology and water quality issues. In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would result in a significant impact if it would:

1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality;

2. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin;

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

4.9-12

3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
a. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site b. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site
c. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff
d. Impede or redirect flood flows;

4. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or

5. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Impact HYD-1 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD INVOLVE GROUND-

DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF HEAVY MACHINERY THAT COULD RELEASE MATERIALS, INCLUDING SEDIMENTS AND FUELS, WHICH COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT WATER QUALITY. OPERATION OF POTENTIAL FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT COULD ALSO RESULT IN DISCHARGES TO STORM DRAINS THAT COULD BE CONTAMINATED AND AFFECT DOWNSTREAM WATERS. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIRED PERMITS AND EXISTING

REGULATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CONTAINED THEREIN, WOULD ENSURE THAT POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction Impacts
Construction activities associated with development of inventory sites, in the middle housing rezoning districts and in the Southside under the proposed HEU would have the potential to cause soil erosion from exposed soil, and accidental release of hazardous materials used for equipment such as vehicle fuels and lubricant, or temporary siltation from storm water runoff. Soil disturbance would occur during excavation for proposed building foundations, demolition of existing buildings, and grading for improvements to public spaces and landscaped areas or development projects.

However, future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with State and local water quality regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality during construction. This includes compliance with the requirements of the SWRCB Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for projects that disturb one acre or more of land. The SWPPP must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit, as well as those that control hydrocarbons, trash, debris, and other potential construction-related pollutants.

Construction BMPs would include scheduling inlet protection, silt fencing, fiber rolls, stabilized construction entrances, stockpile management, solid waste management, and concrete waste management. Post-construction stormwater performance standards are also required to specifically address water quality and channel protection events. Implementation of these BMPs would prevent

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-13
or minimize environmental impacts and ensure that discharges during the construction phase of new development facilitated by the proposed Project would not cause or contribute to the degradation of water quality in receiving waters.

Should dewatering be necessary during construction, it may result in the discharge of potentially cont
aminated groundwater to surface water and may degrade the water quality of surrounding watercourses and waterbodies. However, future development projects would be subject to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R2-2012-0060, G eneral Waste
Discharge Requirements for Discharge or Reuse of Extracted Brackish Groundwater, Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Resulting from Treated Brackish Groundwater, and Extracted Groundwater from Structural Dewatering Requiring Treatment (Groundwater General Permit). The Groundwater General Permit requires dischargers to obtain an Authorization to Discharge, treat effluent to meet water quality-based effluent limitations, and comply with the Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Pumped groundwater must be tested and if determined to be contaminated, the water must be collected and either treated or disposed of according to waste discharge requirements of Order No.

R2-2012-0060. Future applicants are required to comply with all requirements of the Groundwater General Permit.

In addition, BMC Chapter 21.40 requires project applicants to comply with grading, erosion, and sediment control regulations on file in the Public Works Department and BMC Chapter 17.20 requires BMPs to be implemented to minimize non-stormwater discharges from the site during construction (City of Berkeley 2016). Compliance with local and State regulatory requirements and implementation of construction BMPs would minimize discharges during the construction phase of future development under the Housing Element Update and would not result in the degradation of water quality in receiving waters. Therefore, construction-related water quality impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
Berkeley is highly urbanized and the majority of the inventory sites and sites in the middle housing rezoning district and the Southside are almost entirely covered with impervious surfaces except for landscaped areas. Development under the Housing Element Update would involve infill and redevelopment of existing sites. Future development would be required to be implemented in compliance with existing programs and permits, including the BMC and the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (No. CAS612008). Development design would include BMPs to avoid adverse effects associated with stormwater runoff quality. Specifically, future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to implement LID Measures and on-site infiltration, as required under the C.3 provisions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). Implementation of LID measures would reduce water pollution from stormwater runoff as compared to existing conditions. For example, on-site infiltration would improve the water quality of stormwater prior to infiltration or discharge from the site.

Water Quality
Implementation of development facilitated by the proposed project would result in a significant impact if activities would conflict with applicable water quality permits or waste discharge requirements. Future development facilitated by the project would be subject to multiple permits and approvals associated with the protection of water quality, as discussed below.

The City of Berkeley is responsible for enforcing the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). Compliance with the MRP must include operational and maintenance

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

4.9-14
control measures, or BMPs and construction-related BMPs. Provisions specified in the MRP that affect construction projects generally include but are not limited to Provision C.3 (New Development and Redevelopment), Provision C.6 (Construction Site Control), and Provision C.15 (Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges), as described below. Future projects would be required to comply with all provisions of the MRP, including:
 Provision C.3 requir es LID techniques be utilized to employ appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects; to address stormwater runoff pollutant discharges; and to prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects by mimicking a site’s predevelopment hydrology. This is to be accomplished by employing principles such as minimizing disturbed areas and imperviousness, and preserving and recreating natural landscape features, in order to “create functional and appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product” (SFBRWQCB 2015). These LID practices, as well as other provisions and BMPs specified in the MRP, may require long-term operational inspections and maintenance activities to ensure the effective avoidance of significant adverse impacts associated with water quality d
egradation.
 Provision C.6 requires implementation of a construction site inspection and control program at all construction sites and an Enforcement Response Plan to prevent construction-related discharges of pollutants into storm drains. Inspections shall confirm implementation of appropriate and effective erosion and other BMPs by construction site operators/developers, and reporting shall be used to confirm and demonstrate the effectiveness of its inspections and enforcement activities to prevent polluted construction site discharges into storm drains.  Provision C.10 recognizes trash as a significant pollutant in urban runoff and aims to reduce trash loads from municipal separate storm sewer systems. (Refer to Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems regarding solid waste generation impacts of the project.) The City currently implements a suite of zero-waste programs, including a requirement that all residential properties of five or more units provide recycling and organics collection for their tenants’ food scraps, food soiled papers, and any plant debris generated at the property.  Provision C.15 exempts specified unpolluted non-stormwater discharges and to conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges that are potential sources of pollutants. In order for non- stormwater discharges to be conditionally exempted, those permitted under the MRP must identify appropriate BMPs, monitor the non-stormwater discharges where necessary, and ensure implementation of effective control measures to eliminate adverse impacts to waters of the state consistent with the discharge prohibitions of the MRP.

Provision C.3 of the MRP addresses post-construction stormwater requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area or special land use categories that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, such as auto service facilities, retail gas stations, restaurants, and uncovered parking lots. These “regulated” projects are required to meet certain criteria: 1) incorporate site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into the project design; 2) minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge; and 3) minimize increases in runoff flows as compared to pre-development conditions. Additionally, projects in Berkeley that drain to a natural water body must also construct and maintain hydromodification measures to ensure that estimated post-project runoff peaks and durations do not exceed estimated pre-project peaks and duration. LID methods are the primary mechanisms for implementing such controls.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-15
Compliance with the MRP and BMC would increase infiltration of stormwater, decrease stormwater runoff, and would reduce the risk of water contamination from operation of new developments to the maximum extent practicable, and the project would reduce water pollution from stormwater runoff as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, would not significantly contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and would not substantially degrade water quality.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 2: Woul d the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Threshold 5: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact HYD-2 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT

SUBSTANTIALLY DEPLETE GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH GROUNDWATER

RECHARGE SUCH THAT THERE WOULD BE A NET DEFICIT IN AQUIFER VOLUME OR A LOWERING OF THE LOCAL

GROUNDWATER TABLE
. FURTHER, IMPLEMENTATION OF LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT MEASURES AND ON-SITE INFILTRATION REQUIRED UNDER THE C.3 PROVISIONS OF THE MRP, AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE WOULD INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR GROUNDWATER RECHARGE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Future development under the Housing Element Update would not use or deplete groundwater resources. Water supply for Berkeley is provided by EBMUD. The groundwater aquifer beneath Berkeley is not currently used for water storage or drinking water supply. Therefore, future development under the proposed project would not include installation of new groundwater wells or use of groundwater from existing wells.

If construction activities for future development under the proposed project encounter groundwater, dewatering may be required. However, dewatering would only occur to the extent that it was necessary for construction, and a resulting lowering of the groundwater table would be temporary and localized. Potential depressions created by underground structures would also be localized. Groundwater levels would recover upon cessation of dewatering activities.

Berkeley is urbanized and the majority of the inventory sites, sites in the middle housing rezoning districts and Southside are developed with impervious surfaces and existing buildings, so development associated with the proposed project would not result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces in the area, and therefore would not interfere with groundwater recharge.

Additionally, development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP. which promotes infiltration. Implementation of LID measures would increase absorption of stormwater runoff and the potential for groundwater recharge.

Berkeley is under the jurisdiction of the SFBRWQCB, which is responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality

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

4.9-16
objectives. The Basin Plan serves as the basis for the SFBRWQCB’s regulatory programs and incorporates an implementation plan for achieving water quality objectives. With adherence to the State and local water quality standards discussed above, the project would not have an adverse effect on water quality and would not interfere with the objectives and goals in the Basin Plan.

Therefore, development under the Housing Element Update would not result in a net deficit in aqui
fer volume or a lowering of the groundwater table and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 3a: Would t he project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Threshold 3b: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Threshold 3c: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Threshold 3d: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Impact HYD-3 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE

EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITES, INCLUDING THROUGH THE ALTERATION OF THE

COURSE OF A STREAM OR RIVER, IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL EROSION OR SILTATION

ON- OR OFF-SITE OR SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OR AMOUNT OF SURFACE RUNOFF IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN FLOODING OR EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS.

IMPACTS RELATED TO DRAINAGE PATTERNS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction
Construction activities would involve stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving, and other earth- disturbing activities, which may result in the alteration of existing drainage patterns. As described under Impact HYD-1 above, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, NPDES MS4 General Permit, and the Berkeley Municipal Code would reduce the risk of short-term erosion and

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-17
increased runoff resulting from drainage alterations during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
No surface water bodies would be directly affected by development under the Housing Element Update; the Housing Element Update would not involve the alteration of a course of a stream or river. Development could potentially alter the exiting drainage patterns at the future development sites (including inventory sites, sites in the middle housing rezoning districts, and Southside) through the introduction of new impervious surfaces and infrastructure. However, the future development sites and vicinities are urbanized. Of the 364 housing inventory sites, most are currently developed and approximately 105 sites are currently vacant. However, the vacant sites are relatively small (all are under 0.4 acres except for one site which is 0.98 acres) and therefore the introduction of impervious surfaces on these sites would not substantially affect the drainage patterns of the area or stormwater runoff volumes due to the relatively minor change in impervious surface area in the larger context.

New impervious surfaces could locally increase the rate and/or amount of surface runoff, redirect runoff to different discharge locations, or concentrate runoff from sheet flow to channelized flow.

Surface water runoff rate and amount is determined by multiple factors, including the amount and intensity of precipitation and amount of precipitation that infiltrates to the groundwater. Infiltration is also determined by several factors, including soil type, antecedent soil moisture, rainfall intensity, the amount of impervious surfaces in a watershed, and topography. The rate of surface runoff is largely determined by topography. Runoff that does not infiltrate would be captured in the city’s storm drain system and ultimately conveyed to the San Francisco Bay, as under current conditions.

Although site-specific drainage pattern alterations could occur with development facilitated by the proposed project, such alterations would not result in substantial adverse effects. The inventory sites are mostly covered with impervious surfaces, and development under the proposed project would not introduce new impervious areas to the extent that the rate or amount of surface runoff would substantially increase. Development that could be facilitated by the proposed project would not introduce substantial new surface water discharges and would not result in flooding on- or off- site. Overall drainage patterns, including direction of flow and conveyance to stormwater infrastructure, would not be modified by the project, and the runoff volume and rate from the project would be reduced compared to existing conditions.

Further, as discussed under Impact HYD-1 above, MRP-regulated projects must treat 80 percent or more of the volume of annual runoff for volume-based treatment measures or 0.2-inch per hour for flow-based treatment measures. Projects that create or replace 2,500 square feet or more, but less than 10,000 square feet, of impervious surface must implement site design measures to reduce stormwater runoff.

All regulated projects in Berkeley are also required to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that includes the post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) that control pollutant levels pursuant to BMC Chapter 17.20 and the Alameda County Clean Water Program. All SWMPs would be reviewed by the City of Berkeley prior to the issuance of building permits and the most appropriate BMPs would be identified.

Compliance with the General Plan goals and policies and the BMC would increase infiltration of stormwater and reduce stormwater runoff from operation of new developments to the extent practicable. Therefore, development that could be facilitated by the proposed project would not

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

4.9-18
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or alter the course of any stream or river, would not result in erosion or siltation, and would not substantially increase the rate of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site or exceed capacity of a stormwater system. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 4: In fl ood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impact HYD-4 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD PLACE HOUSING AND OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN FEMA-DESIGNATED FLOOD HAZARD AREAS AND TSUNAMI ZONES. HOWEVER,

COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THE BMC, AND THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE WOULD REDUCE POTENTIAL EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH FLOOD EVENTS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Berkeley does not contain large surface water bodies that would result in seiches (including Aquatic Park). As shown on Figure 4.9-2, there are a few FEMA-designated 100-year Flood Hazard Areas throughout the project area, particularly in the western portion of the city. The western-most portion of the project area contains housing opportunity sites; only one housing opportunity site and three R-1 Single Family Residential sites are within a FEMA-designated 100-year Flood Hazard Area. As mentioned above, Chapter 17.12 of the BMC contains standards for construction in flood zones, including using appropriate building materials and techniques and ensures that flood- resistant design occurs per the most restrictive provisions available. In all areas of special flood hazard zones, BMC Section 17.12.090 requires standards for anchoring, construction materials and methods such as using flood-resistant materials, and elevation and floodproofing. BMC Section

17.12.100 contains standards for utilities in special flood hazard zones, which requires new water supply and sanitary sewage systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into systems and discharge of systems to floodwater. On-site waste disposal systems should also be located to avoid impairment to them, or contamination from them during a flood event. In addition, the Berkely General Plan also includes goals and policies addressing flood-related hazards Including Policy S-26 (Flood Hazards Mitigation), Policy S-27 (New Development), and Policy S-28 (Flood Insurance).

Development under the Housing Element Update would be required to be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies listed above. New development that would occur under the proposed project would therefore be designed to withstand flooding hazards, including FEMA- designated Flood Hazard Areas. Therefore, although development under the proposed project would place housing and other structures within FEMA-designated Flood Hazard Areas, potential flood impacts would be less than significant.

The western-most portion of the project area contains housing opportunity sites in tsunami zones (California Department of Conservation 2021). However, as mentioned above, future development under the proposed Housing Element Update would be required to adhere to standards in BMC Chapter 17.12, which specifies requirements for construction and utilities in special flood hazard zones, floodways, and coastal high hazard areas, as well as goals and policies in the General Plan as outlined above under Section 4.9.2c, which are intended to minimize impacts attributed to flooding in established flood hazard zones. Additionally, the development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to adhere to existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations that address

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-19
the management and control of pollutants, including regulations addressing the proper disposal, transportation, storage, and handling of potentially hazardous materials, including the California Health and Safety Code, Division 7 of the California Water Code, and Chapter 15.12 of the BMC.

Adherence to goals and policies in the General Plan, the BMC, and the California Health and Safety Code would reduce the risk of the release of pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation measures are required. c. Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is the extent of the watersheds located in Berkeley, as described above under “Local Watersheds.” This geographic scope is appropriate for hydrology and water quality because water quality impacts are localized in the watershed where the impact occurs.

Development under the Housing Element Update in combination with cumulative development discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, including development under the University’s LRDP in Berkeley, could increase stormwater runoff such that water quality impacts could occur. However, overall, implementation of the proposed project and projects planned under the University’s LRDP would not substantially increase the total area of impervious surface in the project area; would not result in substantial groundwater use or affect groundwater recharge, and would not modify the course of an existing stream or river. Required conformance with State and local policies and regulations would reduce hydrology and water quality impacts associated with future cumulative development. New development and redevelopment within the City would be subject to City, State, and federal policies and ordinances, design, guidelines, the Zoning Code, and other applicable regulatory requirements that reduce impacts related to water quality on a project-by-project basis.

The water quality regulations implemented by the SFBRWQCB take a basin-wide approach and consider water quality impairment in a regional context. For example, the NPDES Construction Permit ties receiving water limitations and basin plan objectives to terms and conditions of the permit, and the MRP encompasses all of the surrounding municipalities to manage stormwater systems and be collectively protective of water quality.

As discussed under Impact HYD-4, portions of Berkeley are located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Cumulative development also subject to inundation may have localized impacts. However, projects would be analyzed and mitigated on a case-by-case basis and would be designed to avoid or mitigate potential impacts related to flooding in compliance with the jurisdiction’s Municipal Code. Cumulative impacts related to flooding, seiche, and tsunami would therefore be less than significant. The proposed Housing Element Update would not impede or redirect flood flows or risk release of pollutants due to inundation. Impacts from implementation of the Housing Element Update related to flood flows and inundation would be less than significant. Because flooding is localized and site-specific, the Housing Element Update would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to flood hazard or inundation risks.

Policies and regulatory requirements described above would avoid significant impacts to water quality and reduce stormwater runoff with future development. Therefore, cumulative

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

4.9-20
development in combination with development under the proposed Housing Element Update would not result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to hydrology and water quality. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-1

4.10 Land Use and Planning
This section analyzes the consistency of the proposed HEU with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, and identifies environmental effects that would arise from such inconsistencies.

4.10.1 Setting
a. Land Uses
The general distribution of land uses within Berkeley is shown in Table 4.10-1. Residential uses and streets occupy almost three-quarters of the overall land area of Berkeley. Institutional uses, such as the University of California, schools, churches, public facilities, and hospitals occupy approximately nine percent of the total land area. Commercial uses make up approximately seven percent of the City’s land area, open space six percent, and manufacturing four percent. Approximately two percent of the City’s land is vacant, and most of the vacant land is located in an area purchased by the East Bay Regional Park District for the Eastshore State Park (City of Berkeley 2001).

Table 4.10-1 Approximate Land Use Summary
Land Use Percentage of Total Land Use (%)
Residential 48
Streets 24
Institutional 9
Commercial 7
Open Space 6
Manufacturing 4
Vacant 2
Total 100
Source: City of Berkeley 2001
City of Berkeley General Plan Land Use Classifications
General Plan land use classifications describe a range of land uses and intensities that reflect different General Plan policies related to the type, location, and intensity of development. Since the General Plan land use classifications describe land uses and development intensities in a relatively large area, they are not intended to be used as standards to determine the maximum allowable density on a specific parcel. Allowable densities and uses in each zoning district are established in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The intent of General Plan land use classifications is to reflect the range of existing zoning districts. Zoning Ordinance regulations for a specific area might allow for a smaller range of uses than allowed by the land use classifications. The Zoning Ordinance is further discussed below under Local Regulations.
 Low Density Residential (1-10 du/ac): These areas are generally characterized by single-family homes. The Low Density Residential land use classification applies to use of land for residential, community services, schools, home occupations, recreational uses, and open space and institutional facilities. Population density will generally not exceed 22 persons per acre.

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

4.10-2
 Low Medium Density Residential (10-20 du/ac): These areas are generally characterized by single-family homes and small multi-family structures with two or three units. The Low Medium Density Residential land use classification applies to the same land uses allowed under Low Density Residential. Population density will generally range from 22 to 44 persons per acre.  Medium Density Residential (20-40 du/a
c): These areas are generally characterized by a mix of single-family homes and small to medium sized multi-family structures. The Medium Density Residential land use classification applies to the same land uses allowed under Low Density Residential. Population density will generally range from 44 to 88 persons per acre.  High Density Residential (40-100 du/ac): These areas are generally characterized by large, multi-family structures conveniently located near transit, the Downtown, the University campus, or BART. The High Density Residential land use classification applies to use of land for residential, community service, schools, institutional, recreational uses, open space, and in some cases where allowed by zoning, ground-floor commercial and office uses. Population density will generally range from 88 to 220 persons per acre.  Neighborhood Commercial (FAR <1 to 3): These areas are generally characterized by pedestrian-oriented, neighborhood-serving commercial development, and multi-family residential structures, and are usually located on two-lane streets with on-street parking and transit. The Neighborhood Commercial land use classification applies to use of land for local- serving commercial, residential, office, community service, and institutional uses. Population density will generally range from 44 to 88 persons per acre.  Avenue Commercial (FAR <1 to 4): These areas are generally characterized by pedestrian- oriented commercial development and multi-family residential structures, and are usually located on ide, multi-lane avenues served by transit or BART. The Avenue Commercial land use classification applies to use of land for local-serving and regional-serving commercial, residential, office, community service, and institutional uses. Population density will generally range from 44 to 88 persons per acre.
 Downtown (FAR <1 to 6): This area is identified as the Downtown in the Downtown Plan and is characterized by high density commercial, office, arts, culture, and entertainment and residential development. The Downtown classification is intended to encourage, promote, and enhance development that will increase the residential population in the Downtown, provide new high density, transit-oriented housing opportunities, and support a vital city center. The Downtown land use classification applies to use of land for medium- and high-density housing, regional- and local-serving arts, entertainment, retail, office, cultural, open space, civic uses, and institutional uses and facilities. It is General Plan policy to increase the residential population in Downtown. Population density will generally range from 88 to 220 persons per acre.  Institutional (FAR <1 to 4): These areas are designated towards institutional, government, educational, recreational, open space, natural habitat, woodlands, and public service uses and facilities, such as the University of California, BART, Berkeley Unified School District, and East Bay Municipal Utility District facilities.
 Manufacturing (FAR <1 to 2): These areas are intended to maintain and preserve areas of Berkeley for manufacturing and industrial uses necessary for a multi-faceted economy and job growth. Appropriate uses for these areas are identified in the West Berkeley Plan.  Mixed Use Residential (FAR <1 to 1.5): These areas are intended to maintain and preserve areas of the City for lighter manufacturing and industrial uses and allow for additional uses, including residential, where determined appropriate by zoning, and only if the use will not weaken Berkeley’s manufacturing and industrial economy. Appropriate uses for these areas are

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-3
identified in the West Berkeley Plan. Population density will generally range from 22 to 44 persons per acre, where housing is allowed.
 Waterfront/Marina (FAR 0 to 0.5): The
se areas are intended to maintain and preserve areas of Berkeley adjacent to the Bay for open space, recreational uses, waterfront-related commercial and visitor services, boating, and water transit facilities. Appropriate uses for these areas are identified in the Waterfront Plan.
 Open Space and Recreation: These areas are intended for parks, open space, pathways, recreational facilities, natural habitat, and woodlands. The Open Space and Recreation land use classification applies to use of land for parks, recreational facilities, schoolyards, community services, and facilities necessary for the maintenance of the areas.  Old Santa Fe Right-of-Way: The approximate location of the Santa Fe Right-of-Way (ROW) is shown in the General Plan Land Use Diagram and is shown for informational purposes only and not intended to serve as a land use classification. Some areas of the ROW are occupied by park uses, some by residential uses, and some vacant.
 Southside Study Area: The approximate location of the Southside Plan Study Area is shown in the General Plan Land Use Diagram and is shown for informational purposes only and not intended to serve as a land use classification. The Southside Plan was adopted on September 27, 2011 and serves as a guide for future development in the Southside area (City of Berkeley 2011).  University Avenue and West Berkeley Nodes: Both the West Berkeley Plan and the University Avenue Strategic Plan established specific "nodes" along University Avenue and San Pablo Avenue in which specific regulatory policies and programs would be applied as an overlay to accomplish area plan goals for revitalization in these specific locations.

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) was passed in 1982 in recognition that “the lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem”, and “among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” The HAA removes barriers to infill housing development projects by expediting housing approvals, and prevents local agencies from disapproving housing development projects for very low, low-, or moderate-income households where appropriate. On September 29, 2017, Governor Brown signed SB 167, AB 1515, and AB 678 to amend the HAA in order to further limit a local agency’s ability to disapprove or reduce the density of residential projects.

Senate Bill 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) took effect in 2019 and declared a statewide housing emergency to be in effect until January 1, 2025. SB 330 prohibits cities and counties from the following actions:
 Establishing rules that would change the land use designation or zoning of parcels to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of the land that was allowed under the specific or general plan as is in effect on January 1, 2018;

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

4.10-4
 Imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development within all or a selection of the local agency’s jurisdictions;
 Imposing or enforcing new design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards;
 Establishing or implementing limits on permit numbers issued by the local agency unless the limit was approved before January 1, 2005, in a “predominantly agricultural county.” Planning and Zoning Law
State law requires each city and county in California to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the land within its planning area (Government Code Sections 65300-65404). The general plan must contain land use, housing, circulation, open space, conservation, noise, and safety elements, as well as any other elements that the city or county may wish to adopt. The circulation element of a local general plan must be correlated with the land use element.

Zoning authority originates from city and county police power and from the State’s Planning and Zoning Law, which sets minimum requirements for local zoning ordinances. The city or county zoning code is the set of detailed requirements that implement the general plan policies at the level of the individual parcel. The zoning code presents standards for different uses and identifies which uses are allowed in the various zoning districts of the jurisdiction. Since 1971, State law has required the city or county zoning code to be consistent with the jurisdiction’s general plan. The consistency requirement does not apply to charter cities other than Los Angeles unless the charter city adopts a consistency rule.

Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) supports the State's climate goals by helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions through coordinated transportation, housing, and land use planning. Under the Act, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set targets for 2020 and 2035 for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organization regions in 2010 and updated them in 2018. Each of the regions must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), as an integral part of its regional transportation plan, that contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet CARB’s targets. The Act establishes some incentives to encourage implementation of the development patterns and strategies included in an SCS. Developers can get relief from certain environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if their new residential and mixed-use projects are consistent with a region’s SCS that meets the targets (see Public Resources Code Sections 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2, 21159.28).
b. Regional Regulations
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050
The Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG/MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050, adopted in October 2021, integrated transportation and land-use plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, including Alameda County. Plan Bay Area 2050 meets all state and federal requirements for a Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, also referred to as the RTP/SCS. The Plan describes where and how the

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-5
region can accommodate the slightly fewer than 1.4 million new households and 1.4 million new jobs projected in the Bay Area by 2050 and details the regional transportation investment strategy over this period. The Plan identifies 35 strategies focus on improving housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment across the Bay Area over a 30-year period. The plan has identified four geographic areas to guide where future growth in housing and jobs would be focused over the next 30 years: Priority Development Areas (PDA), Priority Production Areas (PPA), Transit- Rich Areas (TRA), and High-Resource Areas (HRA). ABAG and MTC developed land use and transportation scenarios in Plan Bay Area 2050 that distributes the total amount of anticipated growth across the region and measure how well each scenario measures against the Plan goals.

Based upon performance, the preferred scenario provides a regional pattern of household and employment growth and a corresponding transportation investment strategy (ABAG/MTC 2021). c. Local Regulations
City of Berkeley General Plan
Adopted in 2001, the Berkeley General Plan is a long-range statement of policies for the development and preservation of Berkeley.1 The General Plan identifies seven major goals: 1) Preserve Berkeley’s unique character and quality of life; 2) Ensure that Berkeley has an adequate supply of decent housing, living wage jobs, and businesses providing basic goods and services; 3) Protect local and regional environmental quality; 4) Maximize and improve citizen participation in municipal decision-making; 5) Create a sustainable Berkeley; 6) Make Berkeley a disaster-resistant community, that can survive, recover from, and thrive after a disaster; and 7) Maintain Berkeley’s infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, buildings, and facilities; storm drains and sanitary sewers; and open space, parks, pathways, and recreation facilities.

The General Plan’s goals are implemented through decisions and actions consistent with the objectives policies and actions of each of the nine Elements: Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Disaster Preparedness & Safety, Open Space & Recreation, Environmental Management, Economic Development and Employment, Urban Design & Preservation and Citizen Participation. The General Plan explicitly recognizes that given its broad scope, “inherent tensions exist between Plan objectives and policies that must be balanced against one another through the decision-making process on particular development and land use decisions.” 2 The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan includes goals, policies and actions that support context-sensitive infill development, historic preservation, transit-oriented development, mobility and access that prioritizes alternative modes of transportation, “complete neighborhoods” that are well-served by a balance of commercial, community-serving/institutional and residential uses, and zoning changes to incentivize affordable housing.

City of Berkeley Zoning Ordinance
The General Plan, area plans, and other citywide plans are implemented through Chapter 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), also known as the Zoning Ordinance, and other City ordinances.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance and associated Zoning Maps set forth specific zoning districts and codify

1 The City of Berkeley Housing Element of the General Plan was last updated in April 2015. Unlike other General Plan elements, Berkeley’s Housing Element is updated every 8 years, according to requirements of the California Housing and Community Development Department.
2 City of Berkeley General Plan (2001), p.I-2.

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

4.10-6
development standards that apply to each district. The City of Berkeley is divided the zoning districts listed in Table 4.10-2.

Table 4.10-2 Berkeley Zoning Districts
Name of District District Symbol
Residential Districts
Single-Family Residential R-1
Limited Two-family Residential R-1A
Environmental Safety Residential ES-R
Restricted Two-family Residential R-2
Restricted Multiple-family Residential R-2A
Multiple-family Residential R-3
Multi-family Residential R-4
High Density Residential R-5
Residential Southside R-S
Residential Southside Mixed Use R-SMU
Residential BART Mixed-Use R-BMU
Commercial Districts
Corridor Commercial C-C
Unive
rsity Avenue Commercial C-U
Neighborhood Commercial C-N
Elmwood Commercial C-E
North Shattuck Commercial C-NS
South Area Commercial C-SA
Telegraph Avenue Commercial C-T
Solano Avenue Commercial C-SO
Downtown Mixed-Use C-DMU
West Berkeley Commercial C-W
Adeline Corridor Commercial C-AC
Manufacturing District
Manufacturing M
Mixe
d Manufacturing MM
Mixed Use-Light Industrial MU-LI
Mixed Use-Residential MU-R
Special Districts
Specific Plan SP
Uncla
ssified U
Overlay Zones (Two or More Districts)
Hillside H
Civi
c Center C

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-7
Name of District District Symbol
Overlay Zones (One District)
Dealership D
Downtown Arts DA
Notes: The General Plan land use classifications do not encompass all the current zoning districts since the zoning districts were updated in July 2022 while the General Plan was adopted in 2001.

Source: BMC Section 23.108.020
Table 4.10-3 shows the Zoning Districts and their corresponding General Plan land use classifications.

Table 4.10-3 Zoning District and Corresponding General Plan Land Use Classification General Plan Land Use Classification Zoning District
Low Density Residential R-1, ES-R
Lo
w Medium Density Residential R-1A, R-2
Medium Density Residential R-2A, R-3
High Density Residential R-4, R-5, R-BMU
Neighborhood Commercial C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SO, C-SA
Avenue Commercial C-SA, C-1, C-T, C-W, C-AC
Downtown C-2, C-1, C-DMU
Manufacturing M, MM, MU-LI
Mixed-Use Residential MU-R
Southside Area R-S, R-SMU
Notes: The General Plan land use classifications do not encompass all the current zoning districts since the zoning districts were updated in July 2022 while the General Plan was adopted in 2001.

Source: City of Berkeley 2001, BMC
City of Berkeley 2015-2023 Housing Element
The City of Berkeley Housing Element serves as the City's framework for housing goals, policies, and detailed programs for meeting existing and future housing needs and for increasing affordable housing opportunities. The current 2015-2023 Housing Element addresses the planning period of January 31, 2015 to January 31, 2023 as required by the State Housing Element Law. The Housing Element guides decisions to facilitate the development, rehabilitation, and availability of housing in Berkeley. Details and policies from the Housing Element are discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing.

City of Berkeley Climate Action Plan (2009)
Adopted in 2009, the Berkeley Climate Action Plan (CAP) outlines a vision for a more sustainable Berkeley and addresses policies and actions for transportation, energy, waste, community engagement and climate adaptation. Chapter 3, Sustainable Transportation and Land Use, of the CAP presents a vision that “cycling, walking, public transit, and other sustainable modes of transportation become mainstream.” This chapter has a goal to “Increase density along transit corridors” and a policy to “encourage the development of housing (including affordable housing) retail services, and employment centers in areas of Berkeley best served by transit.” Other CAP

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

4.10-8
goals and policies relevant to the project are discussed in more detail in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

City of Berkeley Resiliency Strategy
The City’s Resiliency Strategy, released in 2016, identifies goals and actions to improve the ability of the community to survive, adapt, and thrive through acute shock or chronic challenges including earthquakes, wildfires, and climate change. The six goals include:

1. Build a Connected and Prepared Community

2. Accelerate Access to Reliable and Clean Energy

3. Adapt to the Changing Climate

4. Advance Racial Equity

5. Excel and Working Together within the City Government to Better Serve the Community

6. Build Regional Resilience
Area Plans
The City of Berkeley has adopted multiple area plans in order to provide guidance for development in each specific area and set forth policies relating to land use, housing, transportation, economic development, community character, and public safety. Area plans include the South Berkeley Area Plan (adopted in 1990), the Downtown Plan (adopted in 1990), the West Berkeley Plan (adopted in 1993), the University Avenue Strategic Plan (adopted in 1996), the South Shattuck Strategic Plan (adopted in 1997), the Southside Plan (adopted in 2011), and the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan (adopted in 2020).

4.10.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The analysis in this section focuses on environmental impacts from the implementation of the project, as well as consistency with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Program EIR, implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact if it would do any of the following:

Physically divide an established community; or
Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

The consistency analysis describes existing regional and local plans and policies and is intended to fulfill the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d). The emphasis of the analysis is on the project’s inconsistency and potential conflicts between the project and existing applicable land use plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and whether inconsistencies, if any, would result in significant environmental effects. The project is considered consistent with the provisions of the identified regional and local plans if it meets the general intent of the applicable plans and does not conflict with directly applicable policies. A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy nor does state law require precise conformity of a proposed project with every policy or land use designation. Courts have also

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-9
acknowledged that general and specific plans attempt to balance a range of competing interests, and that it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan. Additionally, in reaching such consistency conclusions, the City may also consider the consequences of denial of a project, which can also result in other policy inconsistencies. For example, Government Code Section 65589.5 explains that the potential consequences of limiting the approval of housing are reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.

For an impact to be considered significant, an inconsistency would also have to result in a significant adver
se change in the environment not already addressed in the other resource chapters of this EIR.

The analysis below provides a discussion of the most relevant policies from the various planning documents. However, the City’s consistency conclusions are based upon the planning documents as a whole.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project physically divide an established community? Impact LU-1 THE PROPOSED HEU INCLUDES POLICIES AND PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT ON UNDERUTILIZED AND VACANT SITES AND ALONG ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS. DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.

The proposed project involves policies and programs that would increase the potential number of dwelling units in the City and intensify development in existing urban areas, but would not result in the construction of barriers, such as new roads or other linear development or infrastructure, that would divide the existing communities or neighborhoods. Short-term construction impacts would be mostly contained within the individual development sites themselves.

No new transportation infrastructure would be built under the proposed HEU. Therefore, existing roadways would not be permanently blocked, and temporary construction would not limit access to a community or restrict movement within a community.

The proposed HEU would not divide a community; rather it is designed to meet the City’s RHNA and includes implementation programs that would promote the development of existing vacant, underdeveloped or underutilized properties, thereby locating people closer to existing employment, goods and services within an established community. Furthermore, the proposed project includes Housing Programs with requirements for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) that puts a great emphasis on anti-displacement and tenant protection. Specifically, Program 1.5 enforces replacement housing when developing on nonvacant sites with existing residential units pursuant to AB 1397. Additionally, the proposed HEU does not include any new infrastructure, or alteration of existing infrastructure or thoroughfares, that may create physical divisions or boundaries where none currently exist. Therefore, no impact related to dividing an established community would occur.

Mitigation Measure
No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.

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

4.10-10
Threshold 2: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LU-2 THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF PLAN BAY AREA 2050, THE BERKELEY GENERAL PLAN, AND THE BMC. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The proposed HEU would provide a framework for introducing new housing at all levels of affordability that is within access to transit, jobs, services, and open spaces. Through its identification of sites for future development and implementation of housing programs, the project would encourage development of up to 19,098 new residential units, which would address the City’s fair share housing needs as quantified in the RHNA.

The proposed HEU would also include zoning ordinance and zoning map amendments to ch ange
levels of discretion, increase permitted densities, and adjust lot coverage, height and setback standards in the R-1, R-1A,
R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts and in the Southside Plan Area.

The following analysis discusses the project’s consistency with relevant and applicable plans and regulations, including Plan Bay Area 2050 and the City of Berkeley General Plan. Consistency with Plan Bay Area is presented in Table 4.10-4, and consistency with the General Plan is presented in Table 4.10-5. The project is determined to be either “consistent” or “inconsistent” with the identified goals and policies.

Plan Bay Area 2050
As shown in Table 4.10-4, the project would be consistent with the key goals and strategies of Plan Bay Area 2050. Therefore, the project would not conflict with Plan Bay Area 2050 and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.10-4 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 Measure Proposed HEU Project Consistency
Housing. Spur Housing Production for Residents of all Income Levels H1. Further strengthen renter protections
beyond state law. Building upon recent tenant
protection laws, limit annual rent increases to
the rate of infl
ation, while exempting units less
than 10 years old.

Consistent. The HEU analyzes housing needs for present and future residents. The City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation is 8,934 units, which are distributed across over four income levels. The units would be distributed as is over the four income levels: 2,446 very low units, 1,408 low units, 1,416 moderate units, and 3,664 above moderate units. The allocation described would be protected and not altered. Furthermore, Policies H-3, H-5 and H-9 of the proposed Housing Element Update serves to ensure rent stabilization, ensure below market rate rental housing remains affordable, and preserve existing rental housing.

H2. Preserve existing affordable housing.

Acquire homes currently affordable to low and
middle-income residents for preservation as
permanently deed-restricted affordable
housing.

H4. Build adequate affordable housing to
ensure homes for all. Construct enough deed-
restricted affordable homes to fill the existing
gap in housing for the unhoused community and
to meet the needs of low-income households.

Consistent. As described above, the Housing Element Update is required to provide 2,446 very low-income units, 1,408 low-income units, 1,416 moderate-income units. The affordable housing would be preserved for these income levels. HEU Goal D Special Needs Housing and Homelessness Prevention and policies under this goal would ensure housing affordability in Berkeley especially for people at the lowest income levels.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-11
Measure Proposed HEU Project Consistency
H3. Allow a greater mix of housing densities
and types in Growth Geographies. Allow a
variety of housing types at a range of densities
to be built in Priority Development Areas, select
Transit-Rich Areas and Select High-Resource
Areas.

Consistent. As sho
wn in Figure 2-4 of the Project Description
(Housing Element Update Sites Inventory Locations), most of the housing inventory sites are generally located in areas near major transportation corridors such as Shattuck Avenue, Cedar Street, and San Pablo Avenue, and near existing residential and commercial development. Additionally, the project would encourage
development in the Southside and in other areas throughout the City which are in transit-accessible Priority Development Areas (PDAs). HEU Policy H-17 also aims to promote transit-oriented new construction and encourage construction of new high-density housing on major transit corridors in proximity to transit stations.

H5. Integrate affordable housing into all major
housing projects. Require a baseline of 10-20%
of new market-rate housing developments of
five units or more to be affordable to low-
income households.

Consistent. Pursuant with the Ordinance Number 936, Inclusionary Housing, and Chapter 23C.12 of the BMC, the City requires that all new rental housing with five or more units must provide 20 percent of the units as below market rate units or pay the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee or provide some below market rate units and pay a prorated fee. Of the 20 percent below market rate units, half must be provided to low-income households, and half must be provided to very-low income households (City of Berkeley 2022).

Additionally, HEU Goal A Affordable Housing aims to ensure Berkeley residents have access to quality housing at a range of housing options and prices.

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 mostly in urbanized areas of the City which would reduce pressure to develop open space areas. By placing residents close to jobs and alternative methods of transportation, the project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other criteria pollutants associated with vehicle use to help communities stay healthy and safe.

Source: ABAG 2021
City of Berkeley General Plan
As shown in Table 4.10-5, the project would be consistent with the goals, policies, and actions within the General Plan. As noted under Government Code Section 65589.5(a), the Legislature has concluded that “the lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” More specifically, the Legislature’s stated intent is “to assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal…to assure that counties and cities will prepare and implement housing elements which…will move toward attainment of the state housing goal” (Government Code Section 65581). The project would help meet the City’s RHNA allocation, as well as efficiently utilize vacant, underutilized, and underdeveloped lots within the City to increase the supply of housing. The project would encourage development of housing, which is supportive of the City’s goal and policies.

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

4.10-12
Table 4.10-5 Project Consistency with Relevant General Plan Goals and Policies General Plan Policy Proposed HEU Project Consistency
Land Use Element
Maintain and Preserve the Character of Berkeley
Policy LU-3 Infill Development. Encourage infill
development that is architecturally and
environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of
sustainable planning and construction, and is
compatible with neighboring land uses and
architectural design and scale.

Policy LU-7 Neighborhood Quality of Life. Preser
ve
and protect the quality of life in Berkeley’s
residential areas through careful land use decisions.

Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate infill development on underutilized sites in order to increase density to accommodate a higher number of residents. Individual future projects would be subject to the City’s existing general development standards (BMC Chapter 23.304) to ensure that buildings are compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale. Additionally, future development with two or more units would be required to comply with the City’s proposed set of objective development standards which are anticipated to be adopted in Spring 2023. The objective development standards are tailored to streamline approval of housing projects under the HEU by providing a clear and consistent set of review rules and processes. Examples of standards that the City will define include building height, set back distances, and units allowed per acre. This would ensure that future development is compatible with the character and scale of Berkeley according to the City’s standards (City of Berkeley 2022).

Policy LU-4 Discretionary Review. Preserve and
enhance the aesthetic, environmental, economic,
and social character of Berkeley through careful
land use and design review decisions.

Consistent. Futur
e development would be required to comply
with General Plan land use and design policies, and future discretionary review would be required for ap
plicable projects.

Maintain and Enhance Berkeley’s Residential Areas
Policy LU-9 Non-Reside ntial Traffic. Minimize or
eliminate traffic impacts on residential areas from
institutional and commercial uses through careful
land use decisions.

Consistent. The proposed project would mostly facilitate development within or adjacent to transportation corridors in proximity to BART stations and bus stations. As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, the proposed project would not result in unavoidably significant transportation impacts. HEU Policy H-16 would encourage transit-oriented development and would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Policy LU-11 Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Friendly
Neighborhoods. Ensure that neighborhoods are
pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly with well-
maintained streets, street trees, sidewalks, and
pathways.

Consistent. Futur e development would be required to comply with residential bicycle parking standards pursuant to BMC Section 23.322.090. Impleme
ntation of the HEU would not
interfere or conflict with the City’s pedestrian or bicycle network.

Maintain and Enhance Berkeley’s Commercial Areas and the Downtown Policy LU-23 Transit-Oriented Development.

Encourage and maintain zoning that allows greater
commercial and residential density and reduced
residential parking requirements in areas with
above-average transit service such as Downtown
Berkeley.

Consistent. Policy H-16 of the Housing Element Update would encourage construction of new high-density housing on major transit corridors and in proximity to transit stations.

Development at the North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations in particular would be transit-oriented development which would allow residents to easily access the BART and reduce the need for/usage of single-occupancy vehicles. Pursuant to Chapter

23.334 of the BMC, developments that provide more affordable housing than required and/or a robust Transportation Demand Management Plan would be able to reduce their parking supply.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-13
General Plan Policy Proposed HEU Project Consistency
Policy LU-27 Aven ue Commercial Areas. Maintain
and improve Avenue Commercial areas, such as
University, San Pablo, Telegraph, and South
Shattuck, as pedestrian-friendly, visually attractive
areas of pedestrian scale and ensure that Avenue
areas fully serve neighborhood needs as well as a
broader spectrum of needs.

Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate most
development near Avenue Commercial areas such as Shattuck Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, and University Avenue. Future development with two or more units would be required to comply with the City’s proposed set of objective development standards, which are anticipated to be adopted in Spring 2023.

The objective development standards are tailored to streamline approval of housing projects under the HEU by providing a clear and consistent set of review rules and processes. Examples of standards that the City will define include building height, set back distances, and units allowed per acre. This would ensure that future development is compatible with the character and scale of Berkeley according to the City’s standards (City of Berkeley 2022).

Policy LU-32 Ashby BART Station. Encourage
affordable housing or mixed-use development
including housing on the air rights above the Ashby
BART station and parking lot west of Adeline Street.

Consistent. Th
e sites inventory for the proposed project
currently assumes that 1,200 units from the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Station TOD project would be permitted under the Housing Element Update term
from 2023-2031.

Transportation Element
Automobile Use Reduction
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 Program
(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 s
hopper shuttles connecting all
shopping districts throughout the city.

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 in areas near major transportation corridors such as Shattuck Avenue, Cedar Street, and San Pablo Avenue, and near existing residential and commercial development. Additionally, the project would encourage development in the Southside and in other areas of the City which are in transit-accessible PDAs. HEU Policy H-16 also aims to promote transit-oriented new construction and encourage construction of new high-density housing on major transit corridors in proximity to transit stations. As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, the proposed HEU is estimated to reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population by an estimated seven percent compared to 2040 buildout conditions without the project.

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

4.10-14
General Plan Policy Proposed HEU Project Consistency
Urban Design & Preservation
Protection of Existing Resources
Policy UD-3 Regulation of Neighborhood
Character. Use
regulations to protect the character
of neighborhoods and districts, and respect the
particular conditions of each area.

Consistent. Individual future projects would be subject to the City’s existing general development standards (BMC Chapter

23.304) to ensure that buildings are compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale. Additionally, future development with two or more units would be required to comply with the City’s proposed set of objective development standards, which are anticipated to be adopted in Spring 2023.

The objective standards are tailored to streamline approval of housing projects under the HEU by providing a clear and consistent set of review rules and processes. Examples of standards that the City will define include building height, set back distances, and units allowed per acre. This would ensure that future development is compatible with the character and scale of Berkeley according to the City’s standards (City of Berkeley 2022).

New Construction and Alterations
Policy UD-24 Area Character. Regu late new
construction and alterations to ensure that they are
truly compatible with and, where feasible, reinforce
the desirable design characteristics of the particular
area they are in.

Consistent. Individual future projects would be subject to the City’s existing general development standards (BMC Chapter

23.304) to ensure that buildings are compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale. Additionally, future development with two or more units would be required to comply with the City’s proposed set of objective development standards which are anticipated to be adopted in Spring 2023.

The objective standards are tailored to streamline approval of housing projects under the HEU by providing a clear and consistent set of review rules and processes. Examples of standards that the City will define include building height, set back distances, and units allowed per acre. This would ensure that future development is compatible with the character and scale of Berkeley according to the City’s standards (City of Berkeley 2022).

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

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, future development projects would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen and the California Energy Code, which include requirements for 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.

BMC Consistency
As current zoning would not be able to deliver the level of deed-restricted affordable housing and economic and geographic diversity that the project aims to achieve, the Housing Element Update would contain implementation programs and zoning policies in order to encourage additional housing, especially affordable housing that would support a diversity of income levels and household types. Additionally, under the Housing Element Update, R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts are anticipated to increase in density in order to facilitate increased development in lower density districts. The City is also pursuing the following zoning modifications under the proposed Southside zoning modifications in order to increase housing capacity and production in the

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-15
Southside: building heights, building footprints (including setbacks and lot coverage), parking, ground-floor residential use, and adjustments to the existing zoning district boundaries. This would result in increased height and lot coverage zoning standards in Southside Plan Area. All future development under the project would be required to comply with zoning requirements for residential uses as described in Title 24, Zoning, of the BMC.

Upon adoption of the proposed Housing Element Update and the associated zoning and General Plan amendments, the project would comply with the land use requirements set forth by ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050, the Berkeley General Plan, and the BMC, and therefore, would not result in adverse physical land use impacts.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. c. Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). 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 buildout of the City’s General Plan as well as 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).

Development under the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, would not result in the introduction of new land uses that would conflict with existing land uses, and would be generally consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies intended to encourage transit-oriented and sustainable development while protecting the character of the neighborhood.

Land use and policy consistency impacts associated with buildout of the City’s General Plan would be addressed on a case-by-case basis to determine consistency with applicable plans and policies, except for development under the University of California, Berkeley’s (LRDP) which would be subject to their own review process. Development under the LRDP would not be cumulatively significant since land use impacts are site specific. Since other planned projects would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, they would implement the City’s vision for Berkeley. These projects would generally reduce motor vehicle trips, trip lengths, and associated environmental impacts by being constructed near transit, jobs, services, and open spaces. Because the project’s impacts related to land use compatibility and consistency with local plans and goals would be less than significant, the project’s contribution to cumulative land use impacts would be less than significant.

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

4.10-16

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-1

4.11 Noise
This section evaluates noise and groundborne vibration impacts resulting from the construction and operation of new housing development accommodated by the proposed Housing Element Update.

Topics addressed consist of short-term construction and long-term operational noise and vibration, including the exposure of noise-sensitive receivers to substantial or incompatible noise levels. Noise modeling results and the vibration calculations associated with the analysis herein are included in Appendix G.

4.11.1 Setting
a. Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs (e.g., the human ear). Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).

Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (Hz) and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hz (Kinsler, et. al. 1999).

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as a doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; similarly, dividing the energy in half would result in a decrease of 3 dB (Crocker 2007). Common outdoor and indoor noise sources and their typical corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 4.11-1.

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy. The perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive an increase (or decrease) of up to 3 dBA in noise levels (i.e., twice [or half] the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible (8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (or half) as loud (10.5 times the sound energy) (Crocker 2007).

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

4.11-2
Figure 4.11-1 Examples of Typical Noise Levels

Source: Caltrans 2013
Noise Level
(dBA)
Common Indoor
Noise Levels
Common Outdoor
Noise Levels
Rock band
Inside subway train
Food blender at 3 ft.

Garbage disposal at 3 ft.

Shouting at 3 ft.

Vacuum cleaner at 10 ft.

Normal speech at 3 ft.

Large business office
Dishwasher next room
Small theater, conference
room (background)
Library
Bedroom at night
Concert hall (background)
Broadcast and
recording studio
Threshold of hearing
Jet flyover at 1,000 ft.

Gas lawnmower at 3 ft.

Diesel truck at 50 ft.

Noisy urban daytime
Gas lawnmower at 100 ft.

Commercial area
Heavy traffic 300 ft.

Quiet urban daytime
Quiet urban nighttime
Quiet suburban nighttime
Quiet rural nighttime
110
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-3
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.

The most obvious change is the decrease in sound level as the distance from the source increases.

The manner by which noise declines with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions. Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result simply from the geometric spreading of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013).

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. The amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5 dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011).

Structures can substantially reduce occupants’ exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.

Descriptors
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, its frequency, and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed.

One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and intensity is the equivalent noise level (L
eq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time. Typically, Leq is equivalent to a one-hour period, even when measured for shorter durations as the noise level of a 10- to 30-minute period would be the same as the hour if the noise source is relatively steady. Lmax is the highest Root Mean Squared (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period (Crocker 2007). Normal conversational levels at three feet are in the 60- to 65-dBA Leq range and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).

Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day.

Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn or DNL), which is a 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels described by DNL and CNEL usually differ by about 0.5 dBA. Quiet suburban areas typically have a CNEL in the range of 40 to 50 dBA, while areas near arterial streets are typically in the 50 to 70+ CNEL range.

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

4.11-4
Propagation
Sound from a small, localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern, known as geometric spreading. The sound level decreases or drops off at a rate of approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance.

Traffic noise is not a single, stationary point source of sound. Rather, the movement of vehicles makes the source of the sound appear to emanate from a line (line source) rather than a point. The drop-off rate for a line source is approximately 3 dBA for each doubling of distance. b. Fundamentals of Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of hertz (Hz). The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz and goes to a high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007).

While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz), or when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (FTA 2018). Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.

Descriptors
Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or RMS vibration velocity.

The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in./sec.). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020).

Response to Vibration
Vibration associated with construction has the potential to be an annoyance to nearby land uses.

Caltrans has developed limits for the assessment of vibrations from transportation and construction sources. The Caltrans vibration limits are reflective of standard practice for analyzing vibration impacts. As shown in Table 4.11-1 and Table 4.11-2, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020) identifies guideline impact criteria for damage to buildings and additional impact criteria for annoyance to humans from transient and continuous/frequent sources.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-5
Table 4.11-1 Building Vibration Damage Potential
Maximum PPV (in./sec.)
Structure and Condition Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient mountains 0.12 0.08 Fragi
le buildings 0.20 0.10
Historic and similar old buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50
Notes: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls (i.e., a loose steel ball that is dropped onto structures or rock to reduce them to a manageable size). Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

PPV = peak particle velocity; in./sec. = inches per second Source: Caltrans 2020
Table 4.11-2 Vibration Annoyance Potential
Maximum PPV (in./sec.)
Human Response Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Dis
tinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severe 2.00 0.40
Notes: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls (i.e., a loose steel ball that is dropped onto structures or rock to reduce them to a manageable size). Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

PPV = peak particle velocity; in./sec. = inches per second Source: Caltrans 2020
Propagation
Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the source. Variability in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2020). When a building is exposed to vibration, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss (the loss that occurs when energy is transferred from one medium to another) will usually reduce the overall vibration level. However, under rare circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.
c. Sensitive Receivers
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. According to the Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management Element, noise-sensitive uses include but are not limited to residences, child-care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes (City of Berkeley 2001).

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

4.11-6
Vibration-sensitive receivers, which are similar to noise-sensitive receivers, include residences and institutional uses, such as hospitals, schools, and churches. However, vibration-sensitive receivers also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration-sensitive equipment that is affected by vibration levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance (e.g., recording studios or medical facilities with sensitive equipment). Other features that may have particular sensitivity to groundborne vibration include historic sites and structures. According to the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, 48 percent of the City is comprised of residential land uses (City of Berkeley 2002). Other sensitive receivers consist of recreational uses (e.g., parks and

sensitive wildlife habitat) and institutional uses (e.g., schools, child-care centers, and hospitals). In addition, refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, for a discussion of historic properties in the City that may be particularly sensitive to increases in groundborne vibration levels. d. Existing Conditions
Noise Sources
According to the Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management Element, the most prevalent noise sources in Berkeley are from cars, trucks, buses, trains, industrial plant equipment noise, and activities associated with neighborhoods and schools such as lawn mowing and leaf blowing and children playing. Noise sources related to heavy manufacturing, located mainly in industrialized areas located in West Berkeley, were once a more dominant contributor to the noise environment.

However, the West Berkeley Plan, adopted in 1993, has developed more stringent environmental review and regulation, including the mitigation of noise through both industrial and residential measures (City of Berkeley 2002).

As shown in Figure 4.11-1, noisy urban areas or commercial areas (e.g., commercial districts with major arterial roadways and transit routes) can commonly reach noise levels between 60 dBA L eq
and 80 dBA Leq during the daytime, whereas a common outdoor noise level associated with a quiet urban area (e.g., residential neighborhood with local or collector streets) is 50 dBA Leq during the daytime. These noise levels typically decrease during nighttime hours as traffic activity slows, such that quiet urban areas commonly experience nighttime noise levels of 40 dBA Leq.

A review of sound measurements collected for recent CEQA documents in Berkeley provides a sample of the varied ambient sound conditions in Berkeley and is displayed in Table 4.11-3.

Measured noise levels ranged from 53.3 to 74.7 dBA Leq. These measured ambient noise levels in Berkeley are consistent with the values presented in Figure 4.11-1.

Table 4.11-3 Noise Measurements
Noise Measurement Location Time Period Date dBA Leq Range North Berkeley 1 10:14 AM – 12:21 PM February 26, 2021 53.3 – 65.4 Blake Street2 7:02 AM – 8:00 AM September 10, 2020 54.4 – 61.4 South Berkeley 3 12:19 PM – 3:15 PM September 15, 2020 57.1 – 65.9 Adeline Corridor Specific Plan4 7:45 AM – 8:45 AM November 6, 2018 67.6 – 74.7 1 See Chapter 4.8, Table 4.8-2 of Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations Transit-Oriented Development Zoning Project Draft EIR 2 See Section 12, Table 23 of 2015 Blake Street Residential Project Draft IS 3 See Chapter 4.6, Table 4.6-2 of Southside Zoning Ordinance Amendments Project Draft EIR 4 See Chapter 4.9, Table 4.9-1 of Adeline Corridor Specific Plan Draft EIR

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-7
Vibration Sources
Sources of vibration in the city, similar to that of the noise environment, are also primarily motor vehicles along roadways. Like mobile-source noises, vibration by vehicular movement generally affects numerous receivers along lengths of roadways and depends on pavement and type and weight of the vehicle. Vibration may also be generated by construction equipment (e.g., earth- moving equipment and pile driving); however, these sources are temporary and vary on a project- by-project basis. More permanent, but intermittent, vibration may also be generated by railroad and airport operations, which would affect communities adjacent to these facilities. In addition, commercial or industrial activities may generate vibration from the use of heavy equipment (e.g., businesses that recycle construction debris).

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has adopted regulations designed to protect workers against the effects of occupational noise exposure. These regulations list permissible noise level exposure as a function of the amount of time during which the worker is exposed. The regulations further specify a hearing conservation program that involves monitoring noise to which workers are exposed, ensuring that workers are made aware of overexposure to noise, and periodically testing the workers’ hearing to detect any degradation.
b. State Regulations
California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Section 1206.4 According to the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Section 1206.4 (Allowable Interior Noise Levels) of the California Code of Regulations, interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 CNEL in any habitable room. A habitable room is typically a residential room used for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. Bathrooms, closets, hallways, utility spaces, and similar areas are not considered habitable rooms for this regulation.

California Department of Transportation
As discussed in the Environmental Setting of this section, Caltrans has developed limits for the assessment of vibration from transportation and construction sources, which are reflective of standard practice for analyzing vibration impacts. Table 4.11-1 presents the impact criteria for structural damage to buildings and Table 4.11-2 presents the criteria for annoyance to humans. The State noise and vibration guidelines are to be used as guidance with respect to planning for noise, not standards and/or regulations to which the City of Berkeley must adhere.

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

4.11-8
c. Local Regulations
Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management Element
The Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management Element is intended to identify sources of potential environmental hazards including noise and provide goals, objectives, and policies that ensure that noise from various sources, including transportation and stationary sources, does not create an unacceptable noise environment. Furthermore, the following actions and policies from the General Plan Environmental Management Element are relative to the proposed Housing Element Update (City of Berkeley 2002):

Action EM-43: Noise Reduction. Reduce significant noise levels and minimize new sources of noise.

A. Increase enforcement of the Noise Ordinance to reduce noise impacts.

B. Consider improvements to the Noise Ordinance to improve the City’s ability to reduce noise impacts.

C. Promote increased public awareness concerning the negative effects of excessive noise on humans.

Policy EM-44: Noise Prevention and Elimination. Protect public health and welfare by eliminating existing noise problems where feasible and by preventing significant future degradation of the acoustic environment.

A. Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions.

B. Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State, and Federal noise levels by appropriate City departments.

C. Coordinate with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) to provide information on and enforcement of occupational noise requirements within the City of Berkeley.

D. Support Federal and State legislation to lower allowable noise level on all motor vehicles.

Policy EM-45: Traffic Noise. Work with local and regional agencies to reduce local and regional traffic, which is the single largest source of unacceptable noise in the city.

A. Encourage neighborhood traffic calming strategies that cause motorists to slow down and decrease noise levels in all residential areas. (Also see Transportation Policy T-20.) B. Through the taxi permit process, restrict taxis and shuttles from honking in neighborhoods.

C. Minimize potential transportation noise through proper design of street circulation, coordination of routing, and other traffic control measures.

D. Promote and encourage new vehicle technologies to reduce transportation noise levels.

E. Construct a noise barrier for Aquatic Park. (Also see Open Space and Recreation Policy OS-8.)
F. Enforce muffler laws.

G. Work with AC Transit to reduce bus noise. (Also see Transportation Policy T-2.) H. Establish noise emission limits on City public works projects and vehicles, such as refuse collection trucks, and work with other large institutions in the city, such as BUSD, to reduce vehicle noise emissions.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-9
Policy EM-46: Noise Mitigation. Require operational limitations and all feasible noise buffering for new uses that generate significant noise impacts near residential, institutional, or recreational uses.

A. Promote use of noise insulation materials in new construction and major rehabilitation.

B. Mi
tigate significant noise impacts on parks and public open space, whenever feasible. (Also s
ee Open Space and Recreation Policy OS-12.)
Action EM-47: Land Use Compatibility. Ensure that noise-sensitive uses, including, but not limited to, residences, child-care centers, hospitals and nursing homes, are protected from detrimental noise levels.

A. Noise sensitive development proposals should be reviewed with respect to the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines below.

City of Berkeley Municipal Code
The City’s noise standards, found in Chapter 13, Section 40 (Community Noise) of the City of Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), set forth hours of operation for certain activities and standards for determining when noise is deemed to be a disturbance.

As shown in Table 4.11-4, the City has adopted land use compatibility standards for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types that are exposed to noise levels. According to the City’s standards shown in Table 4.11-4, ambient noise up to 60 dBA L dn is normally acceptable for low
density residences whereas ambient noise up to 65 dBA Ldn is normally acceptable for medium density residences. These standards also establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dBA L
dn (City of Berkeley 2022).

Table 4.11-4 Recommended Maximum Noise Levels
Land Use Category Time Period
Exterior
Normally
Acceptable 3
(dBA Ldn)
Exterior Normally
Unacceptable
(dBA Ldn)
Interior Acceptable
(dBA Ldn)
Low Density Residential 1 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
55 45
Above 55
Above 45
40 45
Medium Density Residential 2 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
60 55
Above 60
Above 55
40 45
Commercial 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
65 60
Above 65
Above 60
40 45
Industry 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 70 Above 70 40
45 1 Low density consists of the following zoning districts: R-1, R-2, R-1A, R-2A, and ESR. 2 Medium density includes R-3 and above.
3 Levels not to be exceeded more than 30 minutes any hour Source: City of Berkeley 2022
Furthermore, Section 13.40.030 of the City Code declares that loud, unnecessary, and unusual noise is a nuisance and is unlawful. The criteria for determining whether a nuisance exists includes the ambient noise level, the sound level of the objectionable noise, the intensity of the noise, whether

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

4.11-10
the noise is continuous or intermittent, the duration and tonal content of the noise, the proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities, the zoning of the area, and the nature of the source. The Code specifically prohibits construction noise between 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on weekends and legal holidays.

There may be instances, especially in existing older buildings, where compliance with noise standards set forth in the BMC may not be economically or technically feasible, and therefore, the Environmental Health Director may grant administrative exceptions to those standards on a case by- case basis after balancing the number of decibels and the amount of time the offending noise exceeds the allowed limit, the number of persons affected, and the cost of reducing the decibels or amount of time to come into compliance with this chapter. Such determination may be appealed to the City Manager within 30 days of the decision.

4.11.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Housing Element Update’s noise and vibration impacts would be significant if it would:

1. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;

2. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or

3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

The following discussion identifies specific thresholds used to analyze the general CEQA thresholds listed above.

Construction Noise Thresholds
As described under Section 4.11.2, Regulatory Framework, Section 13.40.030 of the BMC restricts construction hours to not occur during nighttime hours between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, or between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. The City does not establish construction noise level limits during these periods. In the absence of applicable local noise level limits, this analysis references guidance from the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual to establish a quantified threshold against which to assess the impact of construction noise (FTA 2018); FTA recommends that reasonable noise criteria may include those shown in Table 4.11-5. Construction noise would be significant if it exceeded this noise criteria.

Table 4.11-5 Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use
Daytime
Leq (8-hour)
Nighttime
Leq (8-hour)
Residential 80 70
Commer
cial 85 85
Industrial 90 90
Source: FTA 2018

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-11
Operational Noise Thresholds
The City has adopted noise standards in the BMC that regulate on-site operational noise sources.

The proposed Housing Element Update would result in a significant impact if the accommodated 19,553 housing units generate noise from on-site sources in excess of BMC standards included in Chapter 13, (as described under Section 4.11.2, Regulatory Framework), which collectively regulate noise from operations that are typical to residential uses (e.g., sound-amplifying devices, HVAC equipment, lawn maintenance equipment, hand tools, wheeled equipment, outdoor activities).

Off-site operational noise (i.e., roadway noise) would result in a significant impact if housing development accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update would cause the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 3 dBA, which would be a barely perceptible increase in traffic noise.

Land Use Compatibility Thresholds
According to the City’s land use compatibility standards shown in Table 4.11-4, ambient noise up to 60 dBA Ldn is normally acceptable for low density residences whereas ambient noise up to 65 dBA Ldn is normally acceptable for medium density residences. In addition, ambient noise up to 70 dBA Ldn is potentially acceptable to residences. These standards also establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that enough insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dBA L
dn (City of Berkeley 2022).

Groundborne Vibration Thresholds
The City has not adopted a significance threshold to assess vibration impacts during construction and operation. Therefore, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020) is used to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts related to both potential building damage and human annoyance. Construction vibration impacts from housing development would be significant if vibration levels exceed the Caltrans criteria shown in Table 4.11-1 and Table 4.11-2.

For example, impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.5 in./sec. PPV for residential structures and 2.0 in./sec. PPV for commercial structures, which is the limit where minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural) damage may occur to these buildings. Construction vibration impacts would also be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.12 in./sec. PPV for extremely fragile historic buildings, as shown in Table 4.11-1. In addition, construction vibration impacts would cause significant human annoyance at nearby receivers if vibration levels exceed 0.25 in./sec. PPV, which is the limit where vibration becomes distinctly perceptible.
b. Methodology
As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the proposed Housing Element Update is a plan to accommodate forecasted growth and existing and future need for housing. The following discussion describes the methodology, including models, used to evaluate the significance of potential noise and vibration impacts related to the forecasted construction and operation of 19,097 housing units accommodated by the proposed Housing Element Update, particularly for construction noise, on- site and off-site operational noise, and construction vibration.

Construction Noise
The primary source of temporary noise associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would be construction activities associated with accommodated housing development. Construction

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

4.11-12
equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. Stationary equipment operates in a single location for one or more days at a time, with either fixed-power operation (e.g., pumps, generators, and compressors) or variable-power operation (e.g., pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers). Mobile equipment moves around a construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion, such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders (FTA 2018). Each phase of construction has its own noise characteristics due to specific equipment mixes; some will have higher continuous noise levels than others and some may have high-impact intermittent noise levels (FTA 2018). Therefore, construction noise levels may fluctuate depending on the type of equipment being used, construction phase, or equipment location. In typical construction projects on vacant sites, grading activities typically generate the highest noise levels because grading involves the largest equipment and covers the greatest area. Foundation excavation and construction is often the second loudest phase, followed by paving and building construction.

Variation in power imposes additional complexity in characterizing the noise source level from cons
truction equipment. Power variation is ac
counted for by describing the noise at a reference
distance from the equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle, or percent of operational time, of the activity to determine the L eq of the operation (FTA 2018).

For assessment purposes, noise levels for common construction equipment provided in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018) guidance document were used to analyze potential noise levels associated with future development under the proposed Housing Element Update. The FTA provides typical noise levels at 50 feet from various types of equipment.

Construction noise was also estimated using the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at a distance of 50 feet from future development. Model results are included in Appendix F.

On-site Operational Noise
The primary on-site noise sources associated with operation of housing developments, including in mixed use developments, and those discussed in this analysis, would include noise from stationary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, on-site vehicle movement (e.g., delivery and trash hauling), and outdoor activities. Analysis of outdoor activity considers the existing noise environment and refers to regulations included in the City’s noise ordinance (i.e., Chapter 13) and the General Plan Environmental Management Element.

Specific planning data for HVAC systems are not available at this stage of analysis; however, for a reasonable assessment, specification for a typical to larger-sized residential condenser was used to determine project HVAC noise. The unit used for this analysis is a Carrier 38HDR060 split system condenser. The manufacturer’s noise data lists the unit as having a sound power level of 72 dBA (Carrier 2011).

Off-site Operational Noise
Housing development accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update would generate motor vehicle trips, thereby increasing off-site traffic on area roadways. Traffic noise impacts are analyzed based on data from the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Impact Assessment Memorandum prepared by Kittelson & Associates in June 2022, which is included as Appendix G. The overall increase in traffic noise was estimated using VMT data from the Transportation Assessment for existing conditions (Year 2020future without project conditions (i.e., Year 2031 without the

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-13
proposed Housing Element Update), and future with project conditions (i.e., Year 2031 with the proposed Housing Element Update). Residential development under the proposed Housing Element Update would generate vehicle trips, thereby increasing traffic on area roadways.

Groundborne Vibration
Operation of housing development accommodated by the proposed Housing Element Update would not include substantial vibration sources (e.g., use of heavy equipment). Rather, construction activities would have the greatest potential to generate groundborne vibration affecting sensitive receivers and/or structures adjacent to a construction site, especially during grading and when a site is located near a historic site or structure. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, there are several historic districts in Berkeley. Three housing inventory sites are known as of the date of this report to contain properties which are listed in, or eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or designated City of Berkeley Landmarks, and therefore are considered historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a).

A quantitative assessment of potential vibration impacts from construction activities was conducted using equations developed by Caltrans (Caltrans 2020). Table 4.11-6 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment used in the construction vibration assessment.

Table 4.11-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in./sec.) at 25 Feet
Pile Driver (Impact) 0.644
Pile
Driver (Sonic) 0.170
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Truck 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Sources: FTA 2018; Caltrans 2020
Because groundborne vibration could cause physical damage to structures and is measured in an instantaneous period, vibration impacts are typically modeled based on the distance from the location of vibration-intensive construction activities, which is conservatively assumed to be edge of a project site, to the edge of the nearest off-site structures. For assessment purposes, vibration levels for the construction equipment shown in Table 4.11-6 were modeled at various incremental distances between 25 feet and 100 feet to analyze potential vibration levels associated with future development under the proposed Housing Element Update. Vibration calculations are included in Appendix G to this EIR.

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

4.11-14
c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact NOI-1 CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED UNDER

THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE ALLOWED DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION HOURS AS

SET FORTH IN THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE AND THEREFORE, WOULD NOT OCCUR DURING NIGHTTIME HOURS WHEN PEOPLE ARE MORE SENSITIVE TO NOISE. LARGER DEVELOPMENTS COULD INVOLVE

CONSTRUCTION WITH LENGTHY DURATIONS, SUBSTANTIAL SOIL MOVEMENT, USE OF LARGE, HEAVY-DUTY

EQUIPMENT, AND/OR PILE DRIVING NEAR NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE APPLICABLE FTA DAYTIME NOISE LIMITS. IMPLEMENTATION OF CITY STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR

CONSTRUCTION NOISE WOULD REDUCE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS, BUT MAY NOT REDUCE THEM TO BELOW THRESHOLDS FOR EVERY PROJECT. THEREFORE, IMPACTS GENERATED BY TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

Future construction activity would require the use of a variety of noise-generating equipment that would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels on an intermittent basis. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between the noise source and receiver, and presence or absence of noise attenuation barriers.

Typical noise levels at 50 feet from various types of equipment that may be used during construction are listed in Table 4.11-7. The
loudest noise levels are typically generated by impact
equipment (e.g., pile drivers) and heavy-duty equipment (e.g., cranes, scrapers, and graders).

Construction noise would occur intermittently throughout construction, and in some instances, multiple pieces of equipment may operate simultaneously, generating overall noise levels that are incrementally higher than what is shown in Table

4.11-7.

Table 4.11-7 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 50 Feet from Source
Air Compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Derrick 88
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Jackhammer 88
Loader 80
Paver 85

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-15
Equipment
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 50 Feet from Source
Pile-driver (Impact) 101
Pile-driver (Sonic) 95
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 77
Roller 85
Saw 76
Scarifier 83
Scraper 85
Shovel 82
Truck 84
Sources: FTA 2018
Sensitive receivers are located throughout Berkeley and could be exposed to noise associated with construction activities from reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Housing Element Update. As discussed in Section 4.11.1, Environmental Setting, sensitive receivers in the City mainly consist of residences but also include child-care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and schools. Based on the location of sites shown on Figure 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description, this analysis assumes that construction activities for most projects under the Housing Element Update would occur within 50 feet of sensitive receivers. As shown in Table 4.11-7, sensitive receivers would be exposed to noise levels ranging from 76 to 88 dBA at 50 feet from typical construction equipment and could reach as high as 101 dBA through the use of pile drivers.

However, a typical construction day includes the operation of multiple pieces of equipment at once with noise levels averaged over the construction day. For assessment purposes, a construction noise level at 50 feet from the source was estimated using RCNM and was based on an excavator, dozer, and jackhammer operating simultaneously. In addition, a separate scenario was also analyzed with these pieces of equipment and an impact pile driver. These pieces of equipment generate some of the highest noise levels during demolition and grading phases of construction. As shown in Table 4.11-8, the combined noise level (dBA Leq) from these pieces of equipment is estimated at 84 dBA Leq at 50 feet without a pile driver, and 95 dBA Leq at 50 feet with a pile driver.

Table 4.11-8 Typical Construction Noise Level at 50 Feet Equipment dBA Leq at 50 Feet
Excavator, Dozer, Jackhammer witho ut Impact Pile Driver 84 Excavator, Dozer, Jackhammer with Impact Pile Driver 95 See Appendix G for RCNM results.

Construction noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment, the duration of use, the distance to receivers, and the potential for pile driving. Engine noise reduction technology, including silencers, continues to improve, but heavy construction equipment still generates noise exceeding ambient levels that could cause intermittent annoyance to nearby receivers. Noise associated with construction of most development under the proposed Housing Element Update would be typical of residential construction in urban areas but could exceed the eight-hour 80 dBA L eq daytime
significance threshold at residences.

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

4.11-16
As previously discussed in Methodology of this section, housing development accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update that could result in significant construction noise would tend to include relatively lengthy construction durations (i.e., longer than 18 months), two or more subterranean levels, use of multiple pieces of heavier equipment (i.e., cranes, excavators, dozers), simultaneous use of multiple pieces of equipment, and generally noisier activities, such as the potential for pile driving. While these larger projects are not considered typical, they could potentially result in significant noise impacts, particularly upon adjacent residential zones or other nearby sensitive receivers, and would temporarily increase ambient noise levels above FTA noise limits.

To minimize the effect of construction noise on sensitive receptors, the City would impose its Standard Conditions of Approval. The following Standard Condition of Approval would apply to projects involving construction in residential zoning districts:

Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and Noon on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.

For projects involving construction in non-resid
ential districts, the following Standard Condition of
Approval would apply:

Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.

These conditions would restrict construction activity to daytime hours on Monday through Saturday, avoiding adverse effects on sensitive receptors during normal sleeping hours and reducing exposure to construction noise on weekends.

Additionally, the City would impose the following Stan
dard Condition of Approval:

Construction Noise Reduction Program. The applicant shall develop a site specific noise reduction program prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to reduce construction noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible, subject to review and approval of the Zoning Officer.

The noise reduction program shall include the time limits for construction listed above, as measures needed to ensure that construction complies with BMC Section 13.40.070. The noise reduction program should include, but shall not be limited to, the following available controls to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical:

A. Construction equipment should be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.

B. Equip all internal combustion engine-dri
ven equipment with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.

C. Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. Select hydraulically or electrically powered equipment and avoid pneumatically powered equipment where feasible.

D. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when adjoining construction sites. Construct temporary noise barriers or partial enclosures to acoustically shield such equipment where feasible.

E. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-17
F. If impact pile driving is required, pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.

G. Construct solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to operational business, res
idences or other noise-sensit
ive land uses where the noise control plan analysis
determines that a barrier would be effective at reducing noise.

H. Erect temporary noise control blanket barriers, if necessary, along building facades facing construction sites. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected.

I. Route construction related traffic along major roadways and away from sensitive receptors where feasible.

Construction Noise Management – Public Notice Required. At least two weeks prior to initiating any construction activities at the site, the applicant shall provide notice to businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site. This notice shall at a minimum provide the following: (1) project description, (2) description of construction activities, (3) daily construction schedule (i.e., time of day) and expected duration (number of months), (4) the name and phone number of the Project Liaison for the project that is responsible for responding to any local complaints, (5) commitment to notify neighbors at least four days in advance of authorized extended work hours and the reason for extended hours, and (6) that construction work is about to commence. The liaison would determine the cause of all construction-related complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, worker parking, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the City for review and approval.

Noise Reduction Plan. Applicants are required to develo p a site-specific noise reduction program
prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to reduce construction noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The noise reduction program would include several elements that would reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise, such as the following:
 Equipping all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers in good cond
ition
 Pre-dril lin
g foundation pile holes to minimize the use of pile drivers  Installing solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to sensitive receptors  Erecting temporary noise control blanket barriers along building façades facing construction sites.

The type of construction equipment, proximity of sensitive receivers to the site, and the overall duration of construction are key factors in determining whether construction-related noise would be significant at the project-level as opposed to determining construction noise impacts at the programmatic level. Based on typical construction equipment noise levels, the anticipated duration of construction activities, and type of equipment used for larger housing developments, the proposed Housing Element Update could result in potentially significant construction noise impacts on a project-specific basis at nearby sensitive receivers and the Standard Conditions of Approval above would not reduce noise levels to 80 dBA. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

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

4.11-18
Mitigation Measures
The standard conditions discussed above are equivalent to feasible mitigation measures for each project proposed under the Housing Element Update. Additional mitigation measures beyond the standard conditions are not feasible.

Significance After Mitigation
As discussed above, the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for large projects would reduce construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible. These conditions would include the installation of temporary sound barriers, which are the most effective advanced measure to reduce noise from construction sites adjacent to sensitive receptors. No further measures are available to provide additional reductions in construction noise. However, construction noise levels could still exceed the City’s standards for stationary equipment in both multi-family residential and commercial zones. Furthermore, construction noise levels could exceed the City’s standards at multiple sites where the proposed amendments would facilitate development in Berkeley.

Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Threshold 1: Woul
d the project result in generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact NOI-2 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU COULD INCLUDE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (I.E., HVAC), DELIVERY AND TRASH TRUCKS, AND OTHER NOISE- GENERATING ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER, SUCH ACTIVITIES WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT. IN ADDITION, ON-SITE ACTIVITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS IN THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE. FURTHERMORE, WHILE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WOULD GENERATE VEHICLE TRIPS IN THE CITY, THE INCREASE IN MOBILE NOISE WOULD NOT RESULT IN A PERCEPTIBLE (3- DBA OR GREATER) NOISE INCREASE. PERMANENT NOISE INCREASES DUE TO OPERATION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Housing development accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update would include residential development at increased intensity and density throughout the City that would generate on-site operational noise from stationary sources and off-site operational noise from vehicle trips.

Typical noise sources associated with residential uses include stationary HVAC equipment, on-site vehicle movement (e.g., delivery and trash hauling), outdoor activities, and off-site traffic.

On-site Operational Noise
HVAC

EQUIPMENT
Based on manufacturer’s specifications, a Carrier 38HDR060 split-system with a sound power level of 72 dBA would generate a noise level of approximately 57 dBA at a distance of seven feet. As shown in Figure 4.11-1, an area with ambient noise levels in the vicinity of 60 dBA L dn exists around
the neighborhood north and south of University Avenue. Elsewhere in Berkeley, ambient noise levels are generally below 70 dBA Ldn and in most cases below 65 dBA Ldn. Therefore, in the case where the actual ambient conditions are not known, noise from HVAC equipment could exceed the city’s presumed ambient noise conditions when compared to a reference noise level 57 dBA at a distance of seven feet from the HVAC equipment source. However, noise levels from HVAC

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-19
equipment associated with housing development would be comparable to noise levels of HVAC equipment associated with the existing urban environment. Furthermore, the design and placement of new HVAC equipment would be required to comply with Section 13.40.070 of the BMC, which states that stationary machines and other devices located on the exterior of structures which generate sounds perceptible outside the perimeters of the lot on which the machine or other device is located must be installed with such sound transmission control measures to adequately minimize or eliminate the transmission of the sound to a level not to exceed 60 dBA on weekdays and 50 dBA on weekends for single family residential beyond property perimeters. Stationary equipment shall not exceed 65 dBA on weekdays and 55 dBA on weekends for multi-family residential areas

1. Furthermore, any motor, machinery, pump, such as swimming pool equipment, etc., shall be sufficiently enclosed or muffled and maintained so as not to create a Noise Disturbance in accordance with Section 13.40.050 or 13.40.060.Therefore, operation of HVAC equipment would have a less than significant noise impact.

V

EHICLE ACTIVITY (DELIVERY AND TRASH HAULING)
Future residential development may increase the number of delivery and trash hauling trucks traveling through the City to individual development sites. Increased delivery and trash hauling trucks could intermittently expose various sensitive receivers to increased truck noise. Section 23130 of the California Motor Vehicle Code establishes maximum sound levels of 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet for trucks operating at speeds less than 35 miles per hour. While individual delivery truck and/or loading or trash pick-up operations would likely be audible at properties adjacent to individual development, such operations are already a common occurrence in the urban environment. In addition, solid waste pick-up operations are typically scheduled during daytime hours when people tend to be less sensitive to noise. Furthermore, these noise events from trucks are typically transient and intermittent, and do not occur for a sustained period of time. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from trash and delivery trucks due their prevalence in the city, resulting in a less than significant impact.

O

UTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS
Housing developments would generate noise from conversations, music, television, or other outdoor sound-generating equipment (e.g., leaf blowers), particularly in the event future residents maintain open windows or such activities take place on balconies. However, these noise-generating activities would be similar to those of the existing urban environment. Moreover, Section 13.40.070 of the BMC prohibits operating or permitting the operation of any mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool before 7:00 a.m. on a weekday (or before 9:00 a.m. on a weekend or holiday) or after 7:00 p.m. on a weekday (or after 8:00 p.m. on a weekend or holiday) such that the sound therefrom across a residential or commercial real property line violates Section 13.40.050 or 13.40.060. Furthermore, Section 19.29 of the BMC includes the 2019 California Residential Code, as adopted in Title 24 Part 2.5 of the California Code of Regulations. Required compliance with code enforcement would reduce operational noise impacts related to conversations and sound-generating equipment to a less than significant level.

1 Maximum sound levels for repetitively scheduled and relatively long term operation (period of 10 days or more) of stationary equipment.

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

4.11-20
Off-site Operational Noise
The overall increase in traffic noise from the project was estimated using vehicle trip (VT) data from the Transportation Assessment prepared by Kitte
lson & Associates for existing conditions (i.e., Year
2020 without the proposed Housing Element Update) and future with Project conditions (i.e., Year 2031 with the proposed Housing Element Update). These daily VT scenarios are shown in Table 4.11 9.

Table 4.11 9 Daily Vehicle Trip Summary
Total Daily Vehicle Trips
Baseline Conditions Witho ut proposed Housing Element
Update (2020)
3,213,590
Futur
e with prop
osed Housing Element Update (2031) 3,391,463
Change in Vehicle Trips +177,873
Percent Change in Vehicle Trips (%) 5.5%
Source: Kittelson & Associates 2022
As shown in Table 4.11 9, daily VT would increase by approximately 6 percent over existing 2020 conditions by the year 2031 under the proposed Housing Element Update. A 6 percent increase in traffic on a roadway would equate to an increase of 0.2 dBA. The project would not double the existing mobile noise source and would not increase noise levels by even the most conservative threshold of 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase. Although a 6 percent or more increase in traffic may occur at the local level in areas where substantial new housing is proposed, a doubling of traffic is still not anticipated to occur based on the citywide increase of 6 percent. Therefore, off-site traffic noise impacts would less than significant.

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

Threshold 2: Woul d the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact NOI-3 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT INVOLVE OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL VIBRATION LEVELS (E.G., USE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR MACHINERY). CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY’S STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT CONTROL VIBRATION. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

It is not anticipated that operation of residential housing development would involve activities that would result in substantial vibration levels, such as use of heavy equipment or machinery.

Operational groundborne vibration in the vicinity of development associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would be primarily generated by vehicular travel on the local roadways.

According to the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018) guidance document, rubber tires and suspension systems dampen vibration levels from trucks to a level that is rarely perceptible. Therefore, traffic vibration levels associated with the expected additional trips from the proposed Housing Element Update would not be perceptible by sensitive receivers. Impacts related to operational groundborne vibration would be less than significant. The remainder of this analysis focuses on impacts relate to construction activities associated with future housing development.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-21
Construction activities associated with housing development accommodated by the proposed Housing Element Update would result in varying degrees of groundborne vibration depending on the equipment and methods employed. Construction equipment causes vibration that spreads through the ground and diminishes in strength with distance. Buildings with foundations in the soil in the vicinity of a construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage at the highest levels. Construction vibration is a localized event and is typically only perceptible to a receiver that is in close proximity to the vibration source.

Construction for housing development would require heavy equipment, particularly development with
certain geologic conditions that may require pile driving. Pile d riving would be required if the
project engineer determined that it was necessary and pile driving alternatives were not feasible.

Pile driving more often occurs for buildings with subterranean parking garages or tall buildings (e.g., six or more stories). Such heavy equipment could potentially operate within 25 feet of nearby buildings when accounting for equipment setbacks. As shown in Table 4.11-10, general construction equipment such as a vibratory roller would generate vibration levels up to 0.21 in./sec. PPV at 25 feet, while more intensive equipment such as pile driving could generate a vibration level of approximately 0.64 in./sec. PPV at 25 feet. Vibration levels shown in bolded and underlined text exceed one or more of the Caltrans criteria shown in Table 4.11-1 and Table 4.11-2.

Table 4.11-10 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment
PPV (in./sec.)
25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 125 Feet
Pile Driver (Impact) 0.6441,2,3,4 0.3001,4 0.1921 0.1401 0.1101 Pile Driver (Sonic) 0.1701 0.079 0.051 0.037 0.029
Vibratory Roller 0.2101 0.098 0.063 0.046 0.036
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Loaded Truck 0.076 0.036 0.023 0.017 0.013
Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.011 0.008 0.006
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Notes: Vibration levels shown in bolded and underlined text exceed one or more of the Caltrans criteria shown in Table 4.11 -1 and Table 4.11-2. Superscripts specify the threshold exceeded by each piece of equipment. 1 Exceeds the 0.1 in./sec. Caltrans damage threshold for historic sites (and other critical locations). 2 Exceeds the 0.5 in./sec. Caltrans damage threshold for historic and other/similar old buildings. 3 Exceeds the 0.5 in./sec. Caltrans damage threshold for older residential structures. 4 Exceeds the 0.25 in./sec. Caltrans human annoyance threshold.

Sources: FTA 2018; Caltrans 2020
According to Caltrans impact criteria shown in Table 4.11-1, th e damage threshold for historic sites (which are most sensitive to impacts from groundborne vibration) is 0.12 in./sec. PPV. Groundborne vibration from hoe rams, bulldozers, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammers would not exceed the 0.1 in./sec. PPV threshold for sensitive historic sites. While groundborne vibration from vibratory rollers would only exceed the threshold for building damage for historic sites at 25 feet from the source, vibration levels from pile driving would exceed one or more of the building damage thresholds shown in Table 4.11-1 for historic sites, general old bu ildings, and older and newer

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

4.11-22
residential structures. Furthermore, vibration levels associated with pile driving would also exceed the threshold of 0.25 in./sec. PPV for human annoyance at various distances up to 75 feet, as shown in Table 4.11-10.

As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, a portion of Shattuck Avenue has been identified as an eligible historic district for its significance in Berkeley’s early history, with a period of significance of 1895 to 1958. Although all buildings would be subject to potential impacts from construction vibration, buildings with historic significance would each have varying degrees of susceptibility to groundborne vibration damage depending on the structural integrity of said buildings.

To minimize the effect of construction vibration, the City would impose its Standard Conditions of Approval. The following Standard Condition of Approval would apply to projects involving construction in residential zoning districts:

Damage Due to Construction Vibration. The project applicant shall submit screening level analysis prior to, or concurrent with demolition building permit. If a screening level analysis shows that the project has the potential to result in damage to structures, a structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall be retained to prepare a vibration impact assessment (assessment). The assessment shall take into account project specific information such as the composition of the structures, location of the various types of equipment used during each phase of the project, as well as the soil characteristics in the project area, in order to determine whether project construction may cause damage to any of the structures identified as potentially impacted in the screening level analysis. If the assessment finds that the project may cause damage to nearby structures, the structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall recommend design means and methods of construction that to avoid the potential damage, if feasible. The assessment and its recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety Division and the Zoning Officer. If there are no feasible design means or methods to eliminate the potential for damage, the structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall undertake an existing conditions study (study) of any structures (or, in case of large buildings, of the portions of the structures) that may experience damage. This study shall establish the baseline condition of these structures, including, but not limited to, the location and extent of any visible cracks or spalls; and include written descriptions and photographs.

With implementation of the Standard Conditions of Appro val, groundborne vibration from vibratory
rollers and vibration levels from pile driving would not occur in a manner that would damage buildings. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
The Standard Conditions of Approval listed above is equivalent to feasible mitigation measures for projects proposed under the Housing Element Update. No additional mitigation measures are required.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-23
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact NOI-4 HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT BE

EXPOSED TO INTERMITTENT NOISE LEVELS FROM OVERHEAD FLIGHT PATTERNS FROM AIRPORTS IN THE CITY AS THERE ARE NONE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY. FURTHERMORE, WHILE THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EMPHASIZE

BUILDING HOUSING IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE AIRPORT, ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD,

NONETHELESS, BE REQUIRED TO INCORPORATE NOISE INSULATION FEATURES PER STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS TO REDUCE INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS TO BELOW 45 DBA. THEREFORE, THE IMPACT OF AIRPORT OR AIRSTRIP OPERATIONS ON NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management Element does not identify any airports in the City. The nearest airport to the City of Berkeley is the Oakland (OAK) Airport which is located 11 miles south. According to the Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the City Berkeley is located outside of the airport’s noise contours and the airport influence area illustrated in Figure 3-1 of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Alameda County 2010). Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not expose people residing or working in the plan area to excessive noise levels. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. d. Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area to analyze cumulatively considerable noise impacts includes Berkeley and immediately adjacent areas that could be indirectly affected by noise generated in the city.

Construction Noise
Construction of future development projects in Berkeley would produce temporary noise impacts that would be localized to a project site and sensitive receivers within the immediate vicinity.

Therefore, only sensitive receivers located in close proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected by each activity. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with individual housing development projects accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update may overlap for some time with construction activities for other development projects. Typically, if a development site is 500 feet or more away from another site then noise levels would have attenuated to a point that they would not combine to produce a cumulative noise impact.

Therefore, construction noise levels would typically become cumulative only if two development sites were to have construction occurring within 500 feet of each other. However, under a worst- case scenario, noise from construction activities for two projects within 1,000 feet of each other could contribute to a cumulative noise impact for sensitive receivers located equidistant between the two construction sites with concurrent on-site activities.

Construction activities associated with future development would be required to comply with Section 13.40 of the BMC and would not occur during nighttime hours between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends and holidays. It is anticipated that even with implementation of the Standard Conditions listed

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

4.11-24
under Impact NOI-1, construction noise levels associated with some of the housing development proposed under the proposed Housing Element Update would not be reduced below the applicable FTA noise limits for construction noise on a case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, larger development projects could combine together, or combine with smaller development projects. Based on the locations of the potential housing sites displayed in Figure 2-4 of Section 2, Project Description, this could substantially increase noise levels at specific neighboring noise-sensitive receivers since many sites are located in proximity to each other. Therefore, concurrent construction of development projects accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update could result in cumulatively considerable impacts. This impact would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

On-site Operational Noise
On-site operational noise impacts are localized to an individual development site and sensitive receivers within the immediate vicinity. Future development in the City would include mechanical equipment, loading, trash pick-up, and other noise-generating activities. However, such activities would be typical of the urban environment in the City and on-site activities would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the BMC. The incremental effect of the proposed Housing Element Update with respect to on-site operational noise would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Off-site Operational Noise
Cumulative development through the year 2031 would generate vehicle trips, thereby increasing traffic on area roadways. As shown in Table 4.11 9, future daily VT levels by the year 2031 with future development from the proposed Housing Element Update, which accounts for cumulative residential development in the city, would not double existing VT levels or increase mobile noise by more than 3 dBA. Therefore, the effect of the proposed Housing Element Update on off-site traffic noise would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Groundborne Vibration
Operational groundborne vibration impacts are localized to a project site and sensitive receivers within the immediate vicinity. However, it is not anticipated that new residential development within the City would include substantial sources of operational ground-borne vibration. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to operational ground-borne noise and vibration at any sensitive receiver would not be significant. Impacts related to operational groundborne vibration would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Construction of future development projects in the City would produce temporary vibration impacts that would be localized to a project site and sensitive receivers in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, only sensitive receivers located in close proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected by each individual activity. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with individual housing development projects from the proposed Housing Element Update may overlap for some time with construction activities for other development projects. For the combined vibration impact from simultaneous construction projects to reach cumulatively significant levels, intense construction from these projects would have to occur simultaneously in close proximity to a sensitive receiver. With implementation of the Standard Condition of Approval to control vibration, intense vibration impacts during construction for future development in Berkeley would be less than

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-25
significant. Therefore, concurrent construction of development projects accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update in combination with the cumulative projects would not reach levels such that cumulative impacts would occur. . Impacts related to construction groundborne vibration would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Airport Noise
Aircraft-related noise impacts occur largely in the vicinity of airports or airstrips. Although citywide growth could increase the number of people who are exposed to overhead aircraft-related noise impacts, such impacts would be localized in nature. In addition, new residential development would not result in a direct increase to aircraft operations that would increase noise exposure to aircraft overflight patterns within and outside the city. The proposed Housing Element Update would have no contribution to any cumulative impact related to airport hazards or noise. Impacts related to airport or airstrip noise would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

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

4.11-26

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-1

4.12 Population and Housing
This section describes the existing population, housing, and employment characteristics of Berkeley and evaluates the potential impacts related to population and housing that could result from implementation of the proposed House Element Update.

4.12.1 Setting
Population, housing, and employment data are primarily available on a city/town, county, regional, and state level. This EIR uses data collected and provided at the city level, supplemented by data available at the census tract level.
a. Current Population and Housing
Table 4.12-1 provides 2022 estimates of population and housing for Berkeley. Berkeley has an estimated 2022 population of 124,563 and 52,921 housing units, with an average household size of

2.17 people (California Department of Finance 2022).

Table 4.12-1 Current Population and Housing Stock for Berkeley City of Berkeley Alameda County
Population (# of people) 124,563 1,651,979
Average Household Size (persons/household) 2.17 2.66
Total Housing Units (# of units) 52,921 633,198
Vacant Housing Units 4,544 (8.6%) 31,957 (5.0%)
Source: California Department of Finance 2022
Household Composition
Small households (one to two persons per household) traditionally occupy units with zero to two bedrooms; family households (three to four persons per household) normally occupy units with three to four bedrooms. Large households (five or more persons per household) typically occupy units with four or more bedrooms. The number of units in relation to the household size may reflect preference and economics. Many small households obtain larger units and some large households live in small units. As shown in Table 4.12-1, the average household size in Berkeley was an estimated 2.17 persons in 2022.
b. Population, Housing, and Employment Projections
Table 4.12-2 shows population, housing, and employment projections for Berkeley based on the growth forecasts provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in Plan Bay Area 2040. According to the Plan Bay Area 2040 population projections, Berkeley’s population was anticipated to grow 13 percent by the year 2040. ABAG and MTC project relatively small employment growth (4 percent) in Berkeley between 2020 and 2040.

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

4.12-2
Table 4.12-2 2040 Plan Bay Area Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Berkeley
2022 2040 (projected)
Projected 2022-2040 Growth
(Percent Increase)
Population (# of people) 124,5631 140,9352 16,372 (13%) Housing (# of units) 52,921 55,3702 2,449 (5%)
Employment (# of jobs) 116,4353 121,6702 5,235 (4%)
1 Source: California Department of Finance 2022
2 ABAG and MTC 2017
3 Based on 2020 data
Plan Bay Area 2050 is the most recent regional long-range plan and regional growth forecast for the Bay Area (ABAG and MTC 2021). Though it does not include projections by city, it does include employment and housing projections for Northwest Alameda County which includes Albany, Berkeley, and Emeryville. These projections are shown in Table 4.12-3.

Table 4.12-3 2050 Plan Bay Area Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Northwest Alameda County
2015 2050 (projected)
Projected Growth
(Percent Increase)
Housing (# of units) 73,000 115,000 42,000 (57%)
Employment (# of jobs) 115,000 162,000 7,000 (5%)
Source: ABAB and MTC 2021

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
c. State Regulations
California Housing Law
California Housing Element law (Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8) requires that local jurisdictions outline the housing needs of their community, the barriers or constraints to providing that housing, and actions proposed to address these concerns over an eight-year planning period. In addition, Housing Element law requires each city and county to accommodate its “fair share” of the region’s projected housing need over the Element planning period. Cities and counties must demonstrate that adequate sites are available to accommodate this need, and that the jurisdiction allows for development of a variety of housing types. This housing need requirement is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and apportions to each jurisdiction part of the Bay Area’s projected need (City of Berkeley 2015).

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375, Steinberg)
Senate Bill (SB) 375 focuses on aligning transportation, housing, and other land uses to achieve regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets established under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-3
Transportation Plan (RTP), with the purpose of identifying policies and strategies to reduce per capita passenger vehicle-generated GHG emissions. As set forth in SB 375, the SCS must: (1) identify the general location of land uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the region; (2) identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments of the population, over the course of the planning period; (3) identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need; (4) identify a transportation network to service the regional transportation needs; (5) gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding resource areas and farmland in the region; (6) consider the state housing goals; (7) establish the land use development pattern for the region that, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light-duty trucks to achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), if there is a feasible way to do so; and (8) comply with air quality requirements established under the Clean Air Act.

The City of Berkeley is located in the jurisdiction of ABAG, a Joint Powers Agency established under Califo
rnia Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Pursuant to federal and State law, ABAG serves as a Co
uncil of Governments, a Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and the MPO for the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma and contains 101 cities. ABAG is responsible for preparing the RTP/SCS and RHNA in coordination with other State and local agencies. These documents include population, employment, and housing projections for the region.

Existing law requires local governments to adopt a housing element as part of their general plan and update the housing element every four to eight years. SB 375 requires the RHNA to allocate housing units within the region in a manner consistent with the development pattern adopted by the SCS.

AB 1763
AB 1763, effective January 1, 2020, amends the State Density Bonus Law (Section 65915) to allow for taller and denser 100 percent affordable housing developments, especially those near transit, through the creation of an enhanced affordable housing density bonus.

California Housing Accountability Act
This State law, originally enacted in 1982 and last amended in 2017, prevents localities from disapproving proposed developments that comply with “all applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria,” unless they find that the development would have an unavoidable impact on public health or safety that can only be mitigated by rejecting the project or reducing its size (Hernandez and Golub 2017). Compliance with objective standards and criteria is defined as “substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that a project complies. The Housing Accountability Act also prevents localities from disapproving or reducing the size of developments that have a minimum amount of affordable housing (either 20 percent of units for lower-income households or 100 percent of units for moderate-income households), except under specific circumstances. Mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of their square footage devoted to residential use also qualify for this protection.

Senate Bill 35
In 2017, California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 35 to streamline the approval of affordable housing projects. This law applies in localities that are not meeting their RHNA goals for construction of

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

4.12-4
above-moderate income housing units or units for households below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) (California Legislative Information 2017). These thresholds under SB 35 apply to the City of Berkeley. Applicable localities are required to streamline the approval of eligible housing projects by providing a ministerial approval process. To qualify for streamlining, a project must meet all of a range of criteria related to affordability, including but not limited to the number of units, residential zoning, floor area dedicated to residential uses, environmental constraints, demolition of residential units, historic buildings, and consistency with objective zoning standards (California Legislative Information 2017). CEQA review is not required for eligible projects because they are subject to a ministerial approval process.

Housing Crisis Act
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) seeks to speed up housing production in the next half decade by eliminating some of the most common entitlement impediments to the creation of new housing, including delays in the local permitting process and cities enacting new requirements after an application is complete and undergoing local review—both of which can exacerbate the cost and uncertainty that sponsors of housing projects face. In addition to speeding up the timeline to obtain building permits, the bill prohibits local governments from reducing the number of homes that can be built through down-planning or down-zoning or the introduction of new discretionary design guidelines. The bill is in effect as of January 1, 2020 and expires on January 1, 2030.

SB 330 also regulates demolition of existing housing. It prohibits urbanized jurisdictions from approving a housing development that requires demolition of residential units unless the project creates at least as many units as would be demolished (California Legislative Information 2019).

Local jurisdictions also are prohibited from approving a project that would demolish occupied or vacant “protected units,” unless the project meets several criteria (e.g., replacing all protected units, providing relocation benefits, and giving a right of first refusal to displaced residents for comparable units in the new development). Protected units are defined as subject to a covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rent to levels affordable to affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income; subject to rent control; or occupied by low or very low income households; among other factors. These requirements for demolition do not supersede local demolition controls that are more protective of lower income households.
d. Regional
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
ABAG prepares the RHNA mandated by State law so that local jurisdictions can use this information during their periodic updates of the General Plan Housing Element. The RHNA identifies the housing needs for very low income, low income, moderate income, and above moderate-income groups, and allocates these targets among the local jurisdictions that comprise ABAG. The RHNA addresses existing and future housing needs based on the most recent U.S. Census, data on forecasted household growth, historical growth patterns, job creation, household formation rates, and other factors. The need for new housing is distributed among the four income groups so that each community moves closer to the regional average income distribution, referred to as a “social equity adjustment.” The most recent RHNA allocation, the 6th Cycle Final RHNA Plan, was adopted by ABAG’s Executive Board on December 16, 2021. The City of Berkeley was assigned a RHNA of 8,934 units for the 2023 to 2031 planning period. Local jurisdictions are required by State law to update their General Plan Housing Elements based on the most recently adopted RHNA allocation.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-5
Association of Bay Area Governments
ABAG produces growth forecasts in four-year cycles so that other regional agencies, including the MTC and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), can use the forecasts to make funding and regulatory decisions. The ABAG projections are the basis for the RTP, regional Ozone Attainment Plan, the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan, and the EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan.

In this way, ABAG projections have practical consequences that shape growth and environmental quality. General plans, zoning regulations, and growth management programs of local jurisdictions inform the ABAG projections. The projections are also developed to reflect the impact of “smart growth” policies and incentives that could be used to shift development patterns from historical trends toward a better jobs-housing balance, increased preservation of open space, and greater development and redevelopment in urban core and transit-accessible areas throughout the region.

ABAG calculates the RHNA for individual jurisdictions within Alameda County, including Berkeley.

Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area 2050 was adopted on October 21, 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 is a limited and focused update of the region’s previous integrated Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Plan Bay Area, adopted in 2013. Plan Bay Area 2050 builds upon the growth pattern and strategies developed in the original Plan Bay Area but with updated planning assumptions that incorporate key economic, demographic and financial trends from the last four years (ABAG and MTC 2021).

In 2008, MTC and ABAG initiated a regional effort (FOCUS) to link local planned development with regional land use and transportation planning objectives. Through this initiative, local governments identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs). The PDAs form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The PDAs are areas along transportation corridors which are served by public transit that allow for opportunities for development of transit-oriented development, infill development within existing communities that are expected to take in most of the future development. Overall, over two-thirds of all regional growth by 2040 is allocated within PDAs. The PDAs throughout the Bay Area are expected to accommodate 78 percent (or over 509,000 units) of new housing and 62 percent (or 690,000) of new jobs. Designated PDAs in Berkeley include: University Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, Telegraph Avenue (which was later amended to include the Southside), Adeline Street, South Shattuck Avenue, and the Downtown.
e. Local Regulations
City of Berkeley Municipal Code
In addition to the goals stated in the City’s Housing Element, the City of Berkeley has a history of programs and initiatives to protect existing affordable housing and create new supplies of affordable housing, some of which are codified in the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) and described below.
 Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Program. In 1980, Berkeley residents passed the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance (BMC Chapter 13.76). The Ordinance is one of the strongest rent stabilization laws in the state and regulates residential rents for most rental units in Berkeley. For virtually all of Berkeley’s approximately 26,000 rental units, the Ordinance provides tenants with increased protection against unwarranted evictions helping to maintain affordable housing and preserve community diversity (City of Berkeley 2022a).

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

4.12-6
 City of Berkeley Ellis Act Implementation Ordinance. The Ellis Implementation Ordinance establishes the process for withdrawing residential rental property from the rental housing market (BMC Chapter 13.77).
 Relocation Ord inance. BMC Section 13.84 requires property owners to provide certain protections and compensation for tenants who are temporarily displaced due to repairs needed to bring their unit into compliance.
 Financial Mitigation of Adverse Impact on Displaced Persons. BMC Section 13.77.055 states that the t
enants of any residential rental unit who are required to move as a result of the owner’s withdrawal of the accommodation from rent or lease shall be entitled to a relocation payment in the sum of $15,000 from the owner.
 Good Cause Required for Eviction. No landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of a rental unit covered by the terms of BMC Chapter 13.76.130, unless said landlord shows the existence of one of the grounds for eviction specified in the chapter. Relocation assistance is required to tenant households where at least one occupant has resided in the unit for one year or more and additional assistance to low-income households; or households with disabled or elderly tenants, minor children, or tenancies which began prior to January 1, 1999.  Condo Conversion Limits. BMC Section 21.28.040 implements the Condominium Conversion Ordinance that restricts property owners from converting rental units to condominiums.

Condominium conversion removes multifamily rental housing from the market and can decrease the number of units available to rental households with lower incomes. Accordingly, Berkeley’s Ordinance limits the approval of condominium conversions to 100 units per year and charges a fee which is deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund to offset the impact of reducing the rental housing stock.
 Demolition Controls. The City’s Demolition and Dwelling Unit Controls (BMC Chapter 23.326) limits the ability of property owners to demolish or eliminate existing housing units and requires one-to-one replacement of removed units, or payment of an impact fee for affordable housing, in order to protect the affordable housing supply and existing tenants.  Density Bonus. The State Density Bonus Law, originally adopted by California in 1979, allows new residential development to be built at a higher density than is allowed under local zoning if the project includes units affordable for low-income households. The BMC enforces this law and calculates a project’s density bonus based on a project’s number of below-market rate units, the income level targeted by these units, and the proposed project size.  Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The City of Berkeley Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for ownership housing (BMC Section 23.C.12) requires developers of market-rate ownership housing to include affordable ownership units or pay a fee.  Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee. In 2011, the City Council enacted an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee that requires developers of new market-rate rental projects to pay a fee (BMC Section 22.20.065). Effective July 1, 2020, this fee is $39,746 per new unit of rental housing, payable at the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (City of Berkeley 2022b). 1 If the fee is paid
in its entirety no later than issuance of the building permit, the fee is $36,746 per new unit.

Developers can reduce this fee by including units affordable to low-income households, and the fee is waived if at least 20% of a development’s units are affordable. Revenues generated from

1 Effective as of July 1, 2018. The City of Berkeley Housing Mitigation Fee is adjusted annually based on the California Construction Cost Index.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-7
these fees go to the City’s Housing Trust Fund and are used to develop or preserve affordable housing.
 Commercial Linkage Fee. The City established an affordable housing fee linkage fee on commercial development in 1993 (BMC Section 22.20.065). The commercial linkage fee is levied on developers of new commercial development. Fees range from $2.25 to $4.50 per square foot, depending on building use. Revenues from these fees go to the City’s Housing Trust Fund.

Other City of Berkeley Programs/Initiatives
The City also provides a number of programs and initiatives that support the policies and ordinances described above:
 Eviction Prevention. The City’s Housing Retention Program provides financial assistance to tenants to avoid eviction due to non-payment of rent. Qualifying households can receive one- time grants up to $5,000 to prevent eviction and maintain permanent housing.2 The Housing and Community Services Department administers this program and partners with the East Bay Community Law Center to conduct intake for applicants.
 Family, Senior and Disabled Housing. The City supports and encourages projects that include units affordable and suitable for households with children and large families, support housing programs that increase the ability of senior households to remain in their homes or neighborhoods and encourage provision of an adequate supply of suitable housing to meet the needs of people with disabilities.
 Senior and Disabled Home Rehabilitation Loan Program. The Housing and Community Services Department oversees the Senior and Disabled Rehabilitation Loan Program, which enables low- income senior and disabled homeowners to make essential health, safety, and accessibility repairs. This program provides eligible Berkeley homeowners with interest-free, deferred payment loans of up to $100,000.
 Housing Trust Fund. A housing trust fund is a designated source of public funds—generated through various means—that is dedicated to creating affordable housing. The City created its Housing Trust Fund in 1990, and the fund receives revenue from Affordable Housing Mitigation Fees, Commercial Linkage fees, federal Community Development Block Grant funds, and federal HOME funds. Affordable housing developers can apply for loans from the Housing Trust Fund to support their projects, and the Housing and Community Services Department administers the fund.

4.12.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The proposed project does not involve specific development projects and so the project itself would not result in direct physical changes to population or housing. However, effects on population and housing could occur as a result of the proposed zoning changes. Future development projects could replace existing housing units or add new units, increasing Berkeley’s population. Population growth could result in physical changes related to transportation, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities, as well as other environmental resource areas. These physical impacts are analyzed under the other environmental topics in this EIR.

2 Currently, residents who have been financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic may be eligible for up to $10,000 in additional assistance under the City’s Housing Retention Program (Berkeley 2020).

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

4.12-8
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a significant impact on the environment related to population and housing if it would:

Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); or
Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Although CEQA requires an EIR to consider a project’s growth-inducing impacts, CEQA provides that the EIR “should not assume that growth is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance.” The underlying purpose of the Housing Element Update is to accommodate housing needs, which includes needs as a result of population growth and existing growth in the City. Even substantial growth is not a significant impact if it accommodates growth projections for the City that can be accommodated by existing or planned facilities and services, and is consistent with the City’s General Plan, as well as State and regional policies and regulations. As such, a significant impact for purposes of this threshold is whether the updates to the Housing Element will induce unplanned growth.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Impact POP-1 THIS EIR ASSUMES FULL BUILDOUT OF 19,098 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN BERKELEY THROUGH 2031, WHICH EQUATES TO A POPULATION INCREASE OF AN ESTIMATED 47,443 RESIDENTS COMPARED TO THE EXISTING POPULATION. HOWEVER, GROWTH RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED AND WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL UNPLANNED POPULATION GROWTH. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

For the purposes of this EIR, buildout under the proposed HEU would add up to 19,098 additional residential units to the city by the year 2031 (see Section 2, Project Description). This additional housing would lead to an increase of approximately 47,443 residents in the city from 2023 to 2031, as shown in Table 4.12-4.

Table 4.12-4 Housing Element Update Population Estimates Unit Type1 Persons per Unit # of Units Population
Single Family 3.5 113 396
Accessory Dwelling Units 1.5 800 1,200
R-1 3 770 2,310
Southside Multi-Family 2.5 1,000 2,500
BART Stations Multi-Family 2.5 2,400 6,000
Other Multi-Family2 2.5 14,015 35,038
Total 19,098 47,443
1 Based on unit types assumed in the transportation analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates 2022. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
2 Including middle housing rezoning in the R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-9
In the unlikely event that all potential buildout of the EIR Sites Inventory and in the middle housing rezoning districts and Southside occurs, and assuming the growth is all new and not already accounted for under existing projections, the total population of the city in 2031 would be 172,006 (124,563 current population + 47,443 new residents), or a population increase of approximately 38%.

The proposed project wou ld be consistent with State requirements for th e RHNA and would be
within the growth forecasts for Northwest Alameda County in Plan Bay Area 2050, which projects a 57% increase in population for Northwest Alameda County.

Further, growth under the propose HEU would be concentrated in locations where such development is encouraged by adopted plans due to their proximity to transit and transportation corridors. ABAG has designated several PDAs in Berkeley. PDAs are transit-rich areas that are intended to accommodate most future development in the Bay Area. Designated PDAs in Berkeley include: University Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, Telegraph Avenue (which was later amended to include the Southside), Adeline Street, South Shattuck Avenue, and the Downtown. By focusing development in areas with existing transit infrastructure, PDAs minimize growth in undeveloped parts of the Bay Area, helping to reduce reliance on automotive travel, vehicle miles traveled, and associated greenhouse gas emissions (ABAG 2022). Many of the inventory sites are within PDAs along University Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, at the Ashby BART Station site, and in the Southside.

In addition, the State requires that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of their communities (HCD 2021). Given that the State is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply, the additional units under the proposed project would further assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting the housing needs of the City’s communities.

Furthermore, the proposed HEU would first be submitted to the HCD for review and approval to ensure that it would adequately address the housing needs and demands of the City. Approval by the HCD would ensure that population and housing growth under the 2023-2031 Housing Element would not be substantial or unplanned.

Lastly, this analysis is conservative because it assumes a maximum buildout scenario and includes sites already planned for development and maximum buildout under the proposed zoning changes.

The project’s actual contribution to population growth may be less than estimated in Table 4.12-4.

In addition, the project would not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure that could indirectly lead to population growth. As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, and Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the city is mostly developed and is supported by existing public services and infrastructure which are sufficient to serve the additional housing units.

Therefore, the project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly. This impact would be less than significant.

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

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

4.12-10
Threshold 2: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact POP-2 IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE DISPLACEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE OR HOUSING. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD FACILITATE THE

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW HOUSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, WHILE PRESERVING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. “Substantial” displacement would occur if the proposed project would displace more residences than would be accommodated through growth facilitated by the project. The goal of the proposed project is to accommodate and encourage new residential development in Berkeley at the inventory sites and in other locations such as the North Berkeley and Ashby BART station sites, the middle housing rezoning districts, and in the Southside. The proposed project addresses the need for future housing development beyond that required by the RHNA to account for a reasonable sites buffer.

This buffer of additional units, which is considered in the inventory of candidate housing sites analyzed in this EIR, is intended to help the City address future “no net loss,” if it becomes necessary to identify a replacement site for the Housing Element Update if a site is developed with fewer units or at a higher income category than assumed in the sites inventory. A portion of the housing units would be developed at a density range that could accommodate low and very-income housing as required to meet the RHNA 6th Cycle allocation. Development under the proposed HEU could result in up to an estimated 19,098 new housing units developed by 2031. The types of housing units anticipated under the proposed project would generally fall into the following categories of development projects: single-family, multi-family residential, and/or mixed-use development on vacant sites, redevelopment of existing nonresidential and residential sites that would allow residential use or higher density residential use. Therefore, overall, the proposed HEU would add to the City’s housing stock to meet housing goals.

On an individual site basis, it is possible that some redevelopment projects could result in disp
lacement of current housing. Howe
ver, the proposed HEU includes policies to reduce
displacement impacts. For example, Policy H-5 in the HEU seeks to protect tenants from large rent increases, arbitrary evictions, hardship from relocation, and the loss of their homes. For displaced residents with lower incomes, Policies H-1 through H-3 in the HEU seek to increase affordable housing for Berkeley residents with lower income levels, develop additional funds for permanently affordable housing, and ensuring below market rate rental housing remains affordable for the longest period that is economically and legally feasible. In addition, projects that involve demolition or elimination of dwelling units would be subject to BMC Chapter 23.326, which stipulates that demolition of dwelling units only be approved if it is found that the elimination of the dwelling units would not be materially detrimental to the housing needs and public interest of the affected neighborhood and the city. Further, BMC Chapter 23.326 includes tenant protections for displaced residences. When demolition of an occupied unit is approved, the project applicant is required to provide assistance with moving expenses and subsidize the rent differential for a comparable replacement unit. If a tenant is displaced due to the owner withdrawing the building from rent or lease or for repairs to bring the unit into compliance, BMC Chapters 13.77.055 and 13.84 entitle the tenant to relocation compensation and certain protections. Lastly, BMC Chapter 13.76.130 requires landlords to have good cause for evictions and provide relocation assistance to households as specified in Section 13.76.130A.9.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-11
In summary, the proposed project would facilitate the development 19,098 additional dwelling units throughout Berkeley. Proposed residential units would provide additional housing opportunities for residents if residents are displaced during buildout of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the net loss or displacement of housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c. Cumulative Impacts
Inducement of Substantial Population Growth
As discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, the topic of population and housing has cumulative implications on the entire Bay Area region, not just on the City of Berkeley. Therefore, this cumulative impact analysis is based on Plan Bay Area 2050, the Bay Area’s most recent RTP/SCS. The proposed HEU would accommodate projected citywide population and housing growth through 2031. By its nature, the impact analysis under Impact POP-1 considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth throughout the City and consistent with the Plan Bay Area. The Housing Element Update incorporates regional growth anticipated by ABAG’s RHNA projections and thus considers cumulative growth. The proposed HEU would not considerably contribute to a significant impact associated with unplanned population growth.

Displacement of People and Housing
Implementation of the proposed HEU would accommodate the City’s forecasted population and housing demand through 2031. The proposed HEU would result in an overall net increase of housing units in the City, including affordable housing, and would not result in substantial displacement of people or housing. Other jurisdictions in the region are updating their respective Housing Elements and have similar impacts related to displacement, but they would contain programs and policies to provide housing for low-income and special needs populations. While the proposed HEU would have no direct physical effects, subsequent development under the proposed HEU could result in the demolition of some existing housing units within Berkeley. However, the proposed HEU includes policies to minimize the loss of existing housing and to promote the growth of affordable housing.

Continued implementation of existing City regulations, policies and programs also would preserve existing housing stock and assist those at risk of displacement. As a result, implementation of the proposed HEU would not considerably contribute to a significant cumulative impact from the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people.

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

4.12-12

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-1

4.13 Public Services and Recreation
This section evaluates potential environmental impacts from implementation of the proposed HEU with respect to the following public services: fire protection services, police protection services, public schools, and parks and recreation facilities. Other public facilities and services such as water, wastewater, and solid waste are addressed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems.

4.13.1 Setting
a. Fire Protection
The Berkeley Fire Department (BFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the city of Berkeley. This service area represents 11 square miles and approximately 124,563 residents.

The BFD operates seven fire stations including seven engine companies, two truck companies and four ambulances (City of Berkeley 2022a). The BFD is organized into five divisions, including: Office of the Fire Chief, Administrative and Fiscal Services, Operations, Fire Prevention, and Special Operations. The department has 140 full time equivalent employees (Berkeley Fire Department 2022). The Berkeley Fire Department is responsible for protecting life and property. As needed, these Fire Officers are available 24/7 to respond to fire incidents. The eastern edge of the City of Berkeley is in a very high severity fire hazard zone, as discussed in more detail in Section 4.17, Wildfire.

Facilities
The Fire Department maintains seven fire stations within City limits as shown in Figure 4.13-1:
 Station 1: 2442 Eighth Street
 Station 2: 2029 Berkeley Way
 Station 3: 2710 Russell Street
 Station 4: 1900 Marin Avenue
 Station 5: 2680 Shattuck Avenue
 Station 6: 999 Cedar Street
 Station 7: 3000 Shasta Road
Response Times
The BFD has an average response time of five minutes and fifteen seconds (5:15) from when the station receives the call to the first unit arriving on the scene. The median response time is 4:46 (City of Berkeley 2021).
b. Police Services
The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) provides police protection services to the city of Berkeley.

The BPD is organized into five divisions, including: Office of the Chief, Operations, Investigations, Professional Standards, and Support Services. The BPD consists of 154 sworn officers and is headquartered at 2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

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

4.13-2
Figure 4.13-1 Fire and Police Stations in Berkeley

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-3
Response Times
According to Lieutenant Matt McGee of the Community Services Bureau with the BPD, BPD response times are subject to variations depending on available personnel, call volumes, and other patrol demands. A priority 1 call for the BPD, a call which requires immediate response and there is reason to believe that an immediate threat to life exists, has an average response time of 6.2 minutes. A priority 3 call for the BPD, which requires an immediate response but does not present a significant threat of physical injury or major property damage, has an average response time of 31.6 minutes.
c. Schools
The Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) operates three preschools, 11 elementary schools (grades K-5), three middle schools (grades 6-8), one large comprehensive high school (grades 9-12), a continuation high school (grades 9-12), and an adult school (BUSD 2020a). The District’s overall enrollment for the 2020-2021 school year was 9,559 students (Ed-Data.org 2022).

BUSD is divided into three elementary school zones: Central, Northwest, and Southeast. Two of the middle schools are zoned, while one is a magnet school. Parents of students entering the District fill out an enrollment form and list their preferences for schools. Parents may request any school in the district, but first priority will be given to students living within a school’s attendance zone. d. Parks
The City of Berkeley’s Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department administers recreation centers and maintains the parks, waterfront, and urban forest within the city limits. In this department, the Parks Division maintains 54 parks; 21 turf medians, triangles, and dividers; 44 parking and vacant lots; 75 paths, walks and steps; 40 undeveloped paths; and the Berkeley Marina (City of Berkeley 2020b). There are 250 acres of parkland within city limits, which is a ratio of approximately two park acres per 1,000 residents (City of Berkeley 2022b). In addition to the public open space managed by the City’s Parks Divisions, Berkeley contains parts of the Bay Trail and the 1,854-acre McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, and residents are adjacent to the East Bay Regional Park District’s 2,079-acre Tilden Regional Park and 208-acre Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve. Including these additional parklands, Berkeley’s park acres-to-persons ratio increases to approximately 25.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Parks are shown in Figure 4.13-2.

Several recreational facilities within the University campus may also serve as parks and recreational uses for residents. The University has a general philosophy of keeping the campus open for the public to utilize open spaces.

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

4.13-4
Figure 4.13-2 Parks in Berkeley

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-5

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to public services that are applicable to this analysis.

Applicable State and local regulations are described below. b. State
California Fire and Building Code
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24, California Building Standards Code, of the CCR. The CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been amended for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include: the installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations, Title 5 Education Code, governs all aspects of education within the State. California State Assembly Bill 2926 (AB 2926) – School Facilities Act of 1986 – was enacted by the State of California in 1986 and added to the California Government Code (Section 65995). It authorizes school districts to collect development fees, based on demonstrated need, and generate revenue for school districts for capital acquisitions and improvements. It also established that the maximum fees which may be collected under this and any other school fee authorization are $1.50 per square foot ($1.50/ft
2) for residential development and $0.25/ft2 for commercial and industrial development. AB 2926 was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added Section 66000 et seq. of the Government code. Under this statute, payment of statutory fees by developers serves as total mitigation under CEQA to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities. However, subsequent legislative actions have alternatively expanded and contracted the limits placed on school fees by AB 2926.

California Senate Bill 50
As part of the further refinement of the legislation enacted under AB 2926, the passage of SB 50 in 1998 defined the Needs Analysis process in government Code Sections 65995.5-65998. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. SB 50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school facilities match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether State funding is available; whether the school district is eligible for State funding; and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round schools, and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.

California Government Code sections 65995-65998 sets forth provisions to implement SB 50.

Specifically, in accordance with section 65995(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be

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

4.13-6
full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization…on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65995(i), “A State or local agency may not deny or refuse to appro
ve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to section 65995.5 or
65995.7, as applicable.”
California Education Code section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities.

State Public Park Preservation Act (California Public Resource Code Section 5400 – 5409)
The State Public Park Preservation Act is the primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland in California. Under the Act, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any non-park use unless compensation or land, or both, are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This ensures a no net loss of parkland and facilities.

Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477)
The Quimby Act allows cities and counties to adopt park dedication standards/ordinances requiring developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees towards parkland when property is subdivided.
c. Local
Berkeley General Plan
Fire Protection Goals, Policies, and Actions
The Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element and the Transportation Element of the City’s General Plan contain the following policies and actions related to fire protection services (City of Berkeley 2001a, 2001c):

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. (Also see Transportation Policy T-28.)
Action G. Conduct coordinated planning and training between local and regional police, fire, and public health agencies in preparation for natural and man-made disasters, and ensure that the City’s disaster response communication technologies are compatible with regional agency communication technologies.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-7
Policy S-22 Fire Fighting Infrastructure. Reduce fire hazard risks in existing developed areas.

Action A. Develop proposals to make developed areas more accessible to emergency vehic
les and reliable for evacuation. Consider restricting on-str eet parking, increasing
parking fines in hazardous areas, and/or undergrounding overhead utilities. Require that all private access roads be maintained by a responsible party to ensure safe and expedient passage by the Fire Department at any time, and require approval of all locking devices by the Fire Department. Ensure that all public pathways are maintained to provide safe and accessible pedestrian evacuation routes from the hill areas.

Action B. Evaluate existing access to water supplies for fire suppression. Identify, prioritize, and implement capital improvements and acquire equipment to improve the supply and reliability of water for fire suppression. Continue to improve the water supply for firefighting to assure peak load water supply capabilities. Continue to work with EBMUD to coordinate water supply improvements. Develop aboveground, (transportable) water delivery systems.

Action C. Provide properly staffed and equipped fire stations and engine companies.

Monitor response time from initial call to arrival and pursue a response time goal of four minutes from the nearest station to all parts of the city. Construct a new hill area fire station that has wildland firefighting equipment and ability.

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.

Action A. Continue and expand existing vegetation management programs.

Action B. Property owners shall be responsible for maintaining their structures at a reasonable degree of fire and life safety to standards identified in adopted codes and ordinances.

Action C. Promote smoke detector installation in existing structures. Require the installation of smoke detectors as a condition of granting a permit for any work on existing residential and commercial buildings and as a condition for the transfer of property.

Action D. Promote fire extinguisher installation in existing structures, particularly in kitchens, garages, and workshops.

Action E. Require bracing of water heaters and gas appliances and the anchoring of houses to foundations to reduce fire ignitions following earthquakes.

Policy S-24 Mutual Aid. Continue to fulfill legal obligations and support mutual aid efforts to coordinate fire suppression within 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.

Action A. Work with inter-agency partners and residents in vulnerable areas to investigate and implement actions to improve fire safety, using organized outreach activities and councils such as the Hills Emergency Forum and the Diablo Fire Safe Council.

Action B. Establish close coordination with the California Department of Forestry to minimize the risk of wildland fire in the hill areas.

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

4.13-8
Policy S-25 Fire Safety Education. Use Fire Department personnel to plan and conduct effective fire safety and prevention programs.

Action A. Provide fire safety presentations and programs to local schools, communi ty groups, and neighborhoods.

Acti
on B. Provide fire safety classes for high-occupancy institutional land uses, and commercial and industrial occupancies.

Action C. Develop and implement a program to improve public awareness and disseminate appropriate warnings during times of high fire danger.

Policy T-28 Emergency Access. Provide for emergency access to all parts of the city and safe evacuation routes. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-22.) Action A. Do not install new full diverters or speed humps on streets identified on the Emergency Access and Evacuation Network map unless it is determined by the Fire and Police Departments that the installation will not significantly reduce emergency access or evacuation speeds. The Fire Department should be able to access all Berkeley locations within four minutes (see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element). All other proposed traffic calming devices or obstructions to the free flow of traffic on these streets should be reviewed by the Fire and Police Departments to ensure that the proposed change will not significantly increase emergency response times or hinder effective evacuation of adjacent neighborhoods.

Action B. Maintain and improve pedestrian pathways throughout the city that are dedicated for public use and provide an alternative to the streets in case of an emergency evacuation.

Action C. Maintain and make available to the public up-to-date maps of all emergency access and evacuation routes.

Action D. Where necessary, consider parking restrictions to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicle access and evacuation in hill area neighborhoods with narrow streets.

Action E. Prioritize evacuation routes for undergrounding of overhead utilities.

Police Protection Goals, Policies, and Actions
The Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element, the Transportation Element and the Economic Development & Employment Element of the City’s General Plan provide the following policies and actions related to police protection services (City of Berkeley 2001a, 2001c, 2001e):

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. (Also see Transportation Policy T-28.)
Action G. Conduct coordinated planning and training between local and regional police, fire, and public health agencies in preparation for natural and man-made disasters, and ensure that the City’s disaster response communication technologies are compatible with regional agency communication technologies.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-9
Policy T-28 Emergency Access. Provide for emergency access to all parts of the city and safe evacuation routes. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-22.) Action A. Do not install new full diverters or speed humps on streets identified on the Emerg
ency Access and Evacuation Network map unless it is determined by the Fire and Police Departments that the installation will not significantly reduce emergency access or evacuation speeds. The Fire Department should be able to access all Berkeley locations within four minutes (see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element). All other proposed traffic calming devices or obstructions to the free flow of traffic on these streets should be reviewed by the Fire and Police Departments to ensure that the proposed change will not significantly increase emergency response times or hinder effective evacuation of adjacent neighborhoods.

Polic
y ED-4 Neighborhood and Avenue Commercial Districts. Provide programs and services to assist neighborhood and avenue commercial districts. (Also see Land Use Policies LU-26 and LU-

27.)
Action A. City efforts in neighborhood and avenue commercial zones should:

1. Maintain adequate levels of police presence.

Schools Goals, Policies, and Actions
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan has the following policies and actions related to schools (City of Berkeley 2001b):

Policy LU-13 Basic Goods and Services. Ensure that neighborhoods are well served by commercial districts and community services and facilities, such as parks, schools, child-care facilities, and religious institutions.

Action B. Maximize joint City/Unified School District use of and planning for facilities such as recreation, libraries, and cultural centers.

Parks and Recreation Goals, Policies, and Actions
The Open Space and Recreation Element of the Berkeley General Plan cites a goal in the City’s 1977 Master Plan of providing 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 people. This element also has the following policies related to parks and recreation (City of Berkeley 2001d):

Policy OS-2 Maintenance, Repair, and Enhancements. Within the context of open space resource allocations, give highest priority to maintaining and improving the City’s existing network of open space and recreation facilities.

Policy OS-4 Working with Other Agencies. Work with the Berkeley Unified School District, the University of California, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the East Bay Regional Park District to improve, preserve, maintain, and renovate their open space and recreation facilities.

Policy OS-6 New Open Space and Recreational Resources. Create new open space and recreational resources throughout Berkeley.

Policy OS-7 Serving Disadvantaged Populations. Within the context of open space resource allocations for new or expanded facilities, give high priority to providing additional facilities for populations that are disadvantaged or underserved.

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

4.13-10
Policy OS-8 Community Gardens. Encourage and support community gardens as important open space resources that build communities and provide a local food source.

Policy OS-14 Regional Open Space. Coordinate with regional open space agencies such as the East Bay Regional Park District, neighboring cities, and private sector and nonprofit institutions to maintain, improve, and expand the region’s open space network.

The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan has the following policies and actions related to parks and recreation (City of Berkeley 2001d):

Policy LU-13 Basic Goods and Services. Ensure that neighborhoods are well served by commercial districts and community services and facilities, such as parks, schools, child-care facilities, and religious institutions.

Action B. Maximize joint City/Unified School District use of and planning for facilities such as recreation, libraries, and cultural centers.

In 1986, City of Berkeley voters passed the Berkeley Public Parks and Open Space Preservation Ordinance (“Measure L”) which requires the Berkeley City Council to preserve and maintain existing public parks and open space according to the following regulations:

1. That wherever public parks and open space currently exist in Berkeley, such use shall continue and be funded at least to allow the maintenance of the present condition and services.

2. That all undedicated or unimproved open space owned or controlled by the City of Berkeley (including land held by the City in trust) shall be retained and funded by the Berkeley City Council to enable public recreational use of those lands.

3. That those census tracts containing less than the Master Plan guideline of two acres of parks and open space per 1,000 population shall be singled out as having a high priority for funding the acquisition, development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities.

Berkeley Municipal Code
Chapter 19.48, Berkeley Fire Code, of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) adopts the 2019 California Fire Code as the City’s fire code and provides City-specific amendments, as necessary. This chapter regulates the use of construction materials and requires the installation of specific fire safety features in new construction in Berkeley. Additionally, this chapter requires the coordination of the review of development applications between the City and the MOFD and regulates building design, siting, and vegetation management to enhance maximum fire prevention and protection Berkeley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City adopted its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2019. The mitigation goals and priorities of the City’s LHMP are to increase Berkeley’s level of preparation for potential disasters and to minimize the impacts associated with natural and man-made hazards; identify strategies and tools to facilitate community disaster and hazards awareness and education; provide for the safety of Berkeley citizens by maintaining efficient, well-trained, and adequately equipped City personnel; encourage a disaster-resistant City and surrounding area by reducing the potential for loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from disasters and hazards; reduce the vulnerability of public and private facilities and infrastructure to the effects of earthquakes, fire, and landslides; and promote conditions and strategies that will accelerate the capacity for physical and

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-11
economic recovery from disasters and hazards (City of Berkeley 2019). The City Fire Department and Police Department is designated to respond to hazards and emergencies in Berkeley.

Berkeley Unified School District – School Facilities Fee Per SB 50 (described above, the Berkeley Board of Education adopted a School Facility Fee for new housing and commercial development in order to help the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) meet the costs of expanding their facilities to accommodate increased enrollment caused by new development. These fees are directed towards maintaining adequate service levels, which would ensure that impact to schools that could result from development projects in the project sites would be offset by development fees and, in accordance with State law, reduce potential impacts to a less- than-significant level

4.13.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to public services and recreation from implementation of the proposed project would be significant if it would:

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection;
b. Police protection;
c. Schools;
d. Parks; or
e. Other public facilities;
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Impacts related to thresholds 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 2 and 3 are analyzed below. Impacts related to other public facilities (Threshold 1(e)) such as water, wastewater and landfills are addressed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems.

This analysis considers the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, as described above, in determining whether the proposed Project, including future development accommodated by the proposed HEU, would result in impacts related to the provision of public services. The evaluation was based on reviewing the regulations and determining their applicability to the proposed HEU.

Public services information was acquired through review of relevant documents and communications with City staff, BFD, BPD, and BUSD. The determination that the proposed HEU would or would not result in "substantial" adverse effects concerning public services considers the relevant policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies, the proposed HEU’s

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

4.13-12
compliance with such policies, and whether the HEU would create the need for new or expanded facilities, the construction of which could result in environmental impacts.

In City of Hayward v. Trustees of California State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, the Court of
Appeal held that significant impacts under CEQA consist of adverse changes in any of the physical conditions within the area of a project and potential impacts on public safety services are not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project applicant to mitigate: “[T]he obligation to provide adequate fire and emergency medical services is the responsibility of the city. (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 35, subd. (a)(2) [“The protection of the public safety is the first responsibility of local government and local officials have an obligation to give priority to the provision of adequate public safety services.”].) Thus, the need for additional fire and police protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1a: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF POPULATION AND BUILDINGS WITHIN BERKELEY. THE PROJECTED POPULATION INCREASE WOULD INCREASE

DEMAND FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AND POTENTIALLY CREATE THE NEED FOR A NEW OR ALTERED FIRE STATION. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH POLICIES IN THE 2020 GENERAL PLAN WOULD REDUCE IMPACTS RELATED TO FIRE SERVICE FACILITIES TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.

The proposed HEU would not expand the BFD service area but would result in an increased population within the existing service area. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the proposed HEU could facilitate the development of approximately 19,098 housing units. The additional housing units would result in approximately 47,443 additional persons in Berkeley and the BFD district (see Section 4.12, Population and Housing, for population estimation methodology).

The increase in residents associated with the project could increase demand for fire protection and emergency medical services such that additional staff, equipment or facilities would be needed to meet response time goals.

The continued implementation of po licies and actions in the Berkeley General Plan would improve the ability of fire protection facilities to serve this future development and allow fire protection services to maintain response time goals. Policy S-22
in the City’s Disaster Preparedness and Safety
Element calls for the City to provide adequately staffed and equipped Fire Stations and to pursue a response time goal of four minutes from the nearest station to all parts of Berkeley.

Further, future development under the proposed HEU would be required to comply with basic building designs and standards for residential buildings as mandated by the Berkeley Fire Code, under BMC Section 19.48. In some cases, older buildings not constructed to today’s more stringent levels of fire-safety regulation would be replaced by new buildings compliant with existing regulations, improving fire safety on those sites. Compliance with designs and standards and other fire safety requirements would reduce the demand for fire protection services and thereby reduce the need for new fire stations. Future development under the proposed HEU would be required to comply with abatement of fire-related hazards and pre-fire management prescriptions as outlined

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-13
under the California Health and Safety Code and the California Fire Plan. A list of typical fire-related requirements included in these codes and that would apply to typical residential projects allowed by the proposed HEU are as follows:
a. Adequate marking of exterior building openings
b. Open
ings and fire escape stairs and balconies
c. Internal access, including via hallways and doorways d. Manual and automatic fire alarm systems
e. Fire
Fighter Air Replenishment Systems
f. Internal building sprinkler systems
g. New fire hydrants
h. External fire protection (setbacks, fire-resistant materials, etc.) New residential projects allowed by the proposed HEU would be reviewed for compliance with these requirements and compliance with other building and safety regulations several times during different phases of project development. During the entitlement and pre-application phase, new residential projects that require Use Permits are subject to an Interdepartmental Roundtable Review. As a part of this review, representatives from several City departments, including the Building and Safety Division, the Transportation Division, and the Fire Department, review the entitlement plan set and provide comments regarding Fire and Building Code requirements that will apply to the project. If the plans present a potential access or safety issue, this review offers an early opportunity to identify the problem and discuss solutions. For example, the Fire Department can suggest that an additional stairway be included in a residential building to provide additional egress.

During the building permit process, projects are reviewed again by several City departments, including the Fire Department, to ensure compliance with all applicable code regulations. If a project does not comply with code requirements related to fire safety and access, the applicant will be issued a correction letter, which must be addressed before the building permit is approved.

During the construction process, projects are subject to regular inspections to ensure that buildings are being constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Finally, after construction is complete, the projects are subject to regular inspections to confirm continued structural adequacy and safety.

In November 2020, the City of Berkeley passed Measure FF, which mandates that the City adopt an ordinance enacting a tax on construction and improvements within Berkeley. Measure FF is estimated to generate $8.5 million annually, which would be used to implement a state-of-the-art 911 dispatch system to ensure rapid assistance to emergency medical calls, increase ambulance and paramedic capacity, to better meet the needs of all residents, and strengthen wildfire, earthquake and other disaster prevention and preparedness with new, expanded emergency warning systems, fire fuel reduction and evacuation planning. These funds will allow the Fire Department to address increased call volumes and emergency medical service needs that result from city-wide increases in residential density, including the anticipated increase allowed under the proposed HEU.

Due to compliance with Fire Code requirements and other City efforts to ensure adequate fire protection services, with the increased demand for fire protection services associated with the proposed HEU response time goals would continue to be met. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection facilities under the proposed HEU would be less than significant.

Should the BFD and the City determine that new or expanded facilities are needed to provide fire protection services to Berkeley, it is not known where such facilities would be located. No location

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

4.13-14
has been identified for a new fire station as part of the proposed HEU. Nonetheless, this EIR analyzes the impact associated with development on vacant and underutilized sites throughout Berkeley. A potential future facility would likely be developed as infill development on one of the inventory sites. As infill development, it is not anticipated that the construction of a new fire station would cause additional significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in this EIR. The environmental effects of constructing a fire station would be consistent with the impacts determined in other sections of this EIR, which would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation with the exception of impacts related to historical resources and construction noise.

When and if the Fire Department proposes a new station and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City will conduct a complete evaluation of the station’s environmental impacts under CEQA.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 1b: Wou ld the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Impact PS-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE CITY’S POPULATION. THE PROJECTED POPULATION INCREASE WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES AND POTENTIALLY CREATE THE NEED FOR NEW OR ALTERED POLICE SERVICE FACILITIES.

HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH POLICIES IN THE 2020 GENERAL PLAN WOULD REDUCE IMPACTS RELATED TO POLICE FACILITIES TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.

Implementation of the proposed HEU would increase the population served by the Berkeley Police Department. Although the Police Department does not factor in population increases when determining its staffing needs, population growth in Berkeley could result in an increase in reported incidents, leading to longer response times unless the Police Department increases staffing. Police protection services are not typically “facility-driven,” meaning such services are not as reliant on facilities in order to effectively patrol a beat. An expansion of, or intensification of development within, a beat does not necessarily result in the need for additional facilities if police officers and patrol vehicles are equipped with adequate telecommunications equipment in order to communicate with police headquarters. However, if the geographical area of a beat is expanded, population increases, or intensification/redevelopment of an existing beat results in the need for new police officers, new or expanded facilities may be needed.

Policies in the City’s General Plan listed above aim to ensure that there is adequate staffing to meet exist
ing service demands. Police protection service levels would continue to be evaluated and maintained by BPD in accordance with existing policies, procedures and practices as development occurs over the lifetime of the HEU. Future housing developers would be required to submit a service questionnaire to the BPD in conjunction with their applications to ensure that police protection services are available to serve the proposed housing development.

Should the BPD and t
he City determine that new or expanded facilities are needed to provide police protection services to Berkeley, it is not known where such facilities would be located. No location has been identified for a new police station as part of the proposed HEU. Nonetheless, this EIR

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-15
analyzes the impact associated with development on vacant and underutilized sites throughout Berkeley. A potential future facility would likely be developed as infill development on one of the inventory sites. As infill development, it is not anticipated that the construction of a new police station would cause additional significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in this EIR.

The environmental effects of constructing a police station would be consistent with the impacts determined in other sections of this EIR, which would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation with the exception of impacts related to historical resources and construction noise.

When and if the Police Department proposes a new station and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City will conduct a complete evaluation of the station’s environmental impacts under CEQA.

Therefore, the impact related to police protection services and facilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 1c: Woul d the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN POPULATION IN BERKELEY, RESULTING IN THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OR EXPANDED SCHOOL FACILITIES.

HOWEVER, GOVERNMENT CODE 65995 (B) WOULD REQUIRE FUNDING FOR THE PROVISION OR EXPANSION OF NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES TO OFFSET IMPACTS FROM NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The proposed project would not directly affect local schools but would generate new students entering the BUSD. As shown in Table 2-2 in Section 2, Project Description, the proposed project could result in 19,098 new dwelling units in Berkeley by 2031. In the study prepared for BUSD’s adopted School Facilities Fee on new residential and commercial/industrial development, the District used a blended student generation rate of 0.191 for all housing types (BUSD 2016). Based on this generation rate, development under the proposed project would add an estimated total of 3,648 new students over time (through 2031). These students would be distributed throughout the schools that serve Berkeley depending on their grade level and on their location. The addition of 3,648 new students would result in an increase of 39 percent from the BUSD enrollment of 9,409 students in the 2020-21 school year (Ed-Data.org 2022).

However, to offset a project’s potential impact to schools as discussed in Regulatory Setting, Gover
nment Code 65995 (b) establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees a school district can collect from development projects located within its boundaries. The fees obtained by BUSD are used to maintain the desired school capacity and the maintenance and/or development of new school facilities. Future development facilitated by proposed project would be required to pay school impact fees which, pursuant to Section 65995 (3) (h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), are “
deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the
impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or

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

4.13-16
reorganization.” Additionally, BUSD utilizes an “controlled choice” student assignment system to meet zone-wide diversity goals and to ensure appropriate seating capacity at schools (BUSD 2022).

BUSD will continue to evaluate demand, capacity, and plans for facility needs as future projects under the Housing Element are built out, including any required adjustments to the zones in the controlled choice program relative to new student population generated from additional housing development in Berkeley.

There are no planned improvements to add capacity through expansion. In the event that BUSD constructs a new school or physically alters an existing facility, a project-specific environmental analysis would be required under CEQA to address site-specific environmental concerns. As described above, existing laws and regulations would require funding for the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset impacts from new residential development and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 1d: Woul d the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Threshold 2: Would the proposed project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Threshold 3: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact PS-4 DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD INCREASE THE POPULATION OF BERKELEY AND THE USE OF EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. HOWEVER, NO PLANS FOR THE EXPANSION OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PARKS OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ARE ANTICIPATED. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The proposed HEU would not include the provision of new parks or the physical alteration of existing parks or recreation centers. As described in Section 2, Project Description, full buildout of the project would increase the population in Berkeley by 47,443 new residents by 2031, which would increase use of parks.

In addition to the public open space managed by the City’s Parks Divisions, Berkeley contains parts of the Bay Trail and the Eastshore State Park, and Tilden Regional Park and Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve are adjacent to Berkeley. When considering parkland adjacent, the ratio of parkland per resident would be approximately 25.5 acres per 1,000 residents.

Policies and actions in Berkeley’s Open Space and Recreation Element, referenced above in Section

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting, are designed ensure that adequate parks and recreational facilities are provided to accommodate increase in new residents.

In accordance with General Plan policies, the City continually evaluates and plans for expansion or renovations of parks and recreation facilities as need to accommodate demand. For example,

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-17
Ohlone Park is currently planned for $2,300,000 in investment to renovate existing features.

Compliance with General Plan policies, particularly OS-1, OS-2, OS-6, would ensure park facilities are kept up to date and park acreage to population ratio is maintained within Berkeley. Compliance with General Plan policies and actions would potentially result in development of new recreational opportunities including parks. Should future park or recreational facilities be identified for construction, it is not known where such facilities would be located. No location has been identified for new facilities of the proposed HEU. Nonetheless, this EIR analyzes the impact associated with development on vacant and underutilized sites throughout Berkeley. A potential future facility would likely be developed as infill development on one of the inventory sites. As infill development, it is not anticipated that the construction of facilities in would cause additional significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in this EIR. The environmental effects of constructing facilities would be consistent with the impacts determined in other sections of this EIR, which would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation with the exception of impacts related to historical resources and construction noise. When and if the Parks Department proposes new facilities and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City will conduct a complete evaluation of the station’s environmental impacts under CEQA.

City of Berkeley goals and po
licies regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval disc ussed
throughout this EIR would ensure that impacts from construction of new parks and enhancements to existing parks are reduced to the extent feasible. Impacts to parks and recreation would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation is required. c. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative development in Berkeley, including but not limited to new development facilitated by the Housing Element, would increase demand for public services provided by the City, including fire and police protection services, parks, and libraries. As described in Section 3, Environmental Setting, cumulative development involves buildout associated with the proposed HEU in combination with development under the University of California, Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan.

Fire Protection
The HEU in combination with buildout under the LRDP could increase population such that there is an increase in reported incidents, leading to longer response times unless the Fire Department increases staffing. As described above under Impact PS-1, with continued implementation of General Plan policies, Fire Code requirements, and with additional funding sources under Measure FF, it is not anticipated that a new fire station is needed to serve cumulative development in Berkeley. Therefore, the cumulative impacts related to fire protection facilities would be less than significant, and the proposed HEU’s contribution to these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Police Protection
The HEU in combination with buildout under the LRDP could increase population such that there is an increase in reported incidents, leading to longer response times unless the Police Department increases staffing. Should additional staffing be needed to serve the areas around the project sites accounting for future cumulative development, staffing is reviewed each budget cycle and considers

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

4.13-18
historical and current year information related to police services. Overall, although additional staffing is may be needed, it is not anticipated that additional police department facilities would be needed to serve cumulative growth in the project areas. Further, the University of California Police Department would assist with police protection services for University-owned properties. Therefore, the cumulative impacts related to police facilities would be less than significant, and the proposed HEU’s contribution to these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Schools
Cumulative development would increase the number of children attending BUSD schools. However, as stated in Impact PS-3, compliance with Senate Bill 50 would require applicants for future development in Berkeley to pay school impact fees established to offset potential impacts from new development. Therefore, pursuant to CGC Section 65994(h), the cumulative impact relating to school capacity would be less than significant, and the HEU’s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Parks and Recreation Facilities
Cumulative projects also would increase demand for park and recreational facilities. As described in Section 3, Environmental Setting, cumulative development involves buildout associated with the University of California, Berkeley’s LRDP, which would involve construction of a new housing development to replace the open space at People’s Park. This would result in a decrease of 2.8 acres of park land as well as additional residents in Berkeley that would utilize City park and recreation spaces. Nonetheless, University housing projects would primarily serve University students and staff who would have access to recreational opportunities associated with the University campus.

Because existing parkland in and near Berkeley is adequate to serve overall demand, it is not anticipated that population growth from cumulative development would result in substantial deterioration of existing park facilities. As described in the Impact Analysis section above, the project would increase the population of Berkeley thereby reducing the ratio of parkland within the city limits to parkland ratio to approximately 1.69 acres per 1,000 residents, which is below the City’s goal of two acres of parkland per 1,000 people. Nonetheless, when considering parkland adjacent to the City such as the Eastshore State Park, Claremont Canyon Regional Park, and Tilden Regional Park, the ratio of parkland per resident would be substantially higher, approximately 25.5 acres per 1,000 residents, which is well above the City’s goal. There are planned improvements to parks and recreational facilities near HEU sites and future development on the sites would involve public and private open space for future residents. Therefore, cumulative development would not result in a significant impact related to parks, and the HEU would not make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-1

4.14 Transportation
This section describes the potential impacts related to transportation, including conflicts with transportation plans, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), project-related transportation hazards, and emergency access, associated with the implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update (HEU). The information provided in this section was based primarily on research and analysis provided by a VMT Impact Assessment authored by Kittelson and Associates (Kittelson), included as Appendix G to this report.

4.14.1 Setting
a. Existing Street Network
The street network serving the city is described below.

Regional
Regional access to Berkeley is provided through several freeways and state highways, including Interstate 80/580 (I-80/580), State Route 24 (SR 24), and State Routes 13 (Ashby Avenue) and 123 (San Pablo Avenue).

Major Streets/Arterials
 San Pablo Avenue (SR 123) is a major north-south state highway that runs about 7.4 miles between Interstate 580 in Oakland in the south and Interstate 80 in Richmond in the north. It spans for approximately 2.5 miles in the City of Berkeley. It is a four-lane boulevard with a median strip for its entire length. San Pablo Avenue is used as an alternate route to the Eastshore Freeway (Interstate 80) when that freeway is congested. San Pablo Avenue is maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The speed limit on San Pablo Avenue is 30 miles per hour (mph). On-street parking is provided along both sides of the street. SR 123 is part of the National Highway System, a network of highways that are considered essential to the country’s economy, defense, and mobility by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
 Ashby Avenue (SR 13) is an east-west major state highway that runs about 9.8 miles between Interstate 580 in Oakland in the south and Interstate 80 in Berkeley in the west. It spans for approximately 3.5 miles in the City of Berkeley. It is generally a four-lane highway with some two-lane sections that is enclosed by the eastern hills of Oakland and the entire freeway lies within the earthquake fault zone of the Hayward Fault. The speed limit on Ashby Avenue is 25 mph. On-street parking is provided at some portions of Ashby Avenue. However, during the peak commute hours, on-street parking prohibitions on the north side of the street in the morning and the south side in the evening provide an additional automobile lane east of San Pablo Avenue. SR 13 is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, and is part of the National Highway System, a network of highways that are considered essential to the country’s economy, defense, and mobility by the FHWA.
 Adeline Street is a northeast-southwest major street with four to six automobile lanes and a center median. On-street parking is provided on both sides of the street either as parallel parking or as angled parking with a raised buffer between the parking and the adjacent through automobile lanes. A combination of metered, time limited, and unrestricted parking options are

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

4.14-2
available along the corridor. A Class II bicycle lane is provided on Adeline Street from Ashby Avenue to Fairview Street and a cycletrack (Class IV facility) is provided on Adeline Street from Ashby Avenue to Stuart Street. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Line F runs along Adeline Street. The speed limit on Adeline Street is 25 miles per hour (mph).  Shattuck Avenue is a north-south
four lane major street that connects with Adeline Street. Most blocks of Shattuck Avenue provide angled parking on both sides of the street with a raised buffer between the parking and the adjacent through automobile lanes. South of Adeline Street, Shattuck Avenue is a collector street with two lanes and on-street parallel parking. AC Transit Line 18 runs along Shattuck Avenue. The speed limit on Shattuck Avenue is 25 mph.  Martin Luther King (MLK), Jr. Way is a north-south major street with two lanes in each direction. MLK Jr. Way is adjacent to Adeline Street in the vicinity of the Ashby BART station and is concurrent with Adeline Street between Fairview and 63rd Streets before separating to the south of the station at the border with the City of Oakland. On-street parking is provided along most of the street. AC Transit Line 12 runs along MLK Jr. Way. The roadway’s speed limit is 25 mph.
 Dwight Way is an eastbound two-lane one-way major street north of the Ashby station. Dwight Way provides on-street parking on both sides of the street. AC Transit Line 36 runs along Dwight Way. The speed limit is 25 mph.
 Sacramento Street is a north-south major street with two lanes in each direction with a raised center median. On-street parking is available along most of the street on both sides of the roadway. AC Transit Lines 52, 88, 688, and J run along Sacramento Street. The speed limit is 30 mph from Rose Street to the southern city limits.
 University Avenue is an east-west arterial with two travel lanes in both directions and a raised center median. It is designated as a scenic route. On-street parking is available on both sides of the roadway. AC Transit Lines 51B, 800, and FS run along University Avenue. The speed limit is 25 mph, except from the Eastshore Highway to Fifth street, where the speed limit is 35 mph.

The City of Berkeley Vision Zero Plan and 2020 Pedestrian Plan identifies University Avenue as a High-Injury Street.
b. Traffic Conditions
Analysis Methodology
This section examines how proposed updates based on the housing element would impact the transportation system under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This section uses the metric of vehicle miles traveled to analyze transportation-related impacts consistent with Senate Bill 743 and the state CEQA guidelines. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21099(b(2) and CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Because the City has updated its CEQA thresholds in accordance with these state regulations, this analysis does not make significance conclusions with respect to changes to Levels of Service (LOS).

Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is determined by multiplying the number of vehicular trips by the trip distance in miles. For example, one vehicle that travels ten miles in a day generates 10 VMT. For the purposes of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), VMT is expressed on a daily basis for a typical weekday. VMT values in this analysis represent the full length of a given trip and are not truncated

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-3
at jurisdiction boundaries. Additionally, these VMT values are for trips beginning or ending in the City (i.e., are associated with land uses within the City of Berkeley). Trips passing through the City without stopping are not included in these VMT estimate, as the City has little to no control over such trips.

Although the absolute amount of VMT may be reported, transportation impact analysis is typically based
on VMT expressed as an efficiency metric. VMT efficiency metrics, such as VMT per resident and VMT per employee, allow the VMT performance of different land use quantities to be compared. Such metrics provide a measure of travel efficiency and help depict whether people are traveling by vehicle more or less over time, across different areas, or across different planning scenarios. A per-capita
or per-employee decline in VMT compared to a baseline conditions indicates that the land use patterns and transportation network are operating more efficiently.

The regional travel demand model maintained by Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) is used to identify the VMT generated by land uses in Berkeley as well as the entire county. One measure of VMT is used in this analysis:
 VMT per capita for residential land uses. Includes VMT for all trips produced by a dwelling unit’s residents, such as to work, school, or shop, on a typical weekday. VMT estimates for the 2020 baseline modeled conditions are shown in Table 4.14-1.

Table 4.14-1 Demographics and VMT Per Capita, 2020 Baseline Conditions Units Bay Area Region Berkeley
Population 7,915,267 128,004
Res
idential VMT 180,468,151 1,436,244
VMT Per Capita 22.80 11.22
Source: Alameda County, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2022 According to the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory, screening thresholds can be used to quickly identify projects that can be expected to cause a less than significant impact without conducting a detailed study (OPR 2018). The City of Berkeley guidelines include several screening criteria. The criterion applicable to the project is the “Projects in Low VMT Areas” criterion. According to the Low VMT Areas criterion, projects that are located in low-VMT areas and that have characteristics similar to other uses already located in those areas can be presumed to generate VMT at similar rates. The low-VMT areas in Berkeley are defined based on the results of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) Travel Demand Model and are summarized in VMT maps.
c. Transit Access and Circulation
Transit service providers in the City include the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), a passenger railroad service that provides intercity service across the United States; Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which provides regional rail service; and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), which provides local and Transbay bus service with connections to the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco. Each service is described below.

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

4.14-4
BART
BART provides regional rail service throughout the East Bay and across the Bay to San Francisco and the Peninsula. There are three BART stations in the City of Berkeley, including the Downtown Berkeley, North Berkeley, and the Ashby BART stations.

AC Transit
AC Transit is the primary bus service provider in 13 cities and adjacent unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, with Transbay service to destinations in San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. AC Transit service in Berkeley is described in Table 4.14-2 Table 4.14-2 AC Transit Service in Berkeley
Route # Service Description Stops Serving Plan Area Hour of Service Frequency
Peak Off Peak
6 Downtown Oakland to
Downtown Berkeley via
Telegraph Ave. and Southside
Berkeley (UC campus).

Downtown Berkeley BART
UC Berkeley Telegraph
Avenue
Monday- Sund ay:
5:00 AM to 1:00
AM
12-15
minutes
12-15
minutes
7 El Cerrito del Norte BART to
Downtown Berkeley via
Arlington Ave. and Shattuck
Ave.

Downtown Berkeley BART
Shattuck Avenue
The Circle
Weekdays: 8:08
AM to 7:08 PM
30 m
in 30 min
12 Northwest Berkeley to Oakland
Jack London Sq. via Gilman St.,
Monterey Av., MLK Jr. Way,
55th St., Temescal District,
Pleasant Valley Av., Piedmont
Av. Grand Av., and Broadway
MLK Jr. Way at Ashby
BART, and Adeline St. at
Alcatraz Av.

Monday- Sunday:
6:00 AM to
midnight
20 min 30 min
18 University Village, Albany, to
Lake Merritt BART via Solano
Av., Shattuck Av., MLK Jr. Way,
downtown Oakland.

Shattuck Av. at Dwight
Way, Parker St. Derby St.,
Stuart St., Russell St, and
Ashby Av.

Weekdays: 5:15
AM to 12:50 AM;
Weekends: 6:00
AM to 12:50 AM
15 min 20 min
36 Bancroft Way & Piedmont Ave.,
Berkeley to West Oakland BART
via Bancroft Way/Durant Ave.,
Shattuck Ave., Dwight Way, 7th
St., Public Market Emeryville,
Shellmound St., 40th St., and
Adeline St.

UC Berkeley
Dwight Way
7th Street
Everyday: 5:49 AM
– 11:50 AM
29 min 29 min
80 El Cerrito BART Station to
Claremont Hotel via Central Av.,
Pierce St., University Village, 6th
St., 7th St., and Ashby Av.

Ashby Av. at MLK Jr. Way,
Adeline St., and Shattuck
Av.

Monday- Sunday:
6:00 AM to 10:35
PM
20 min 20 min
688 1 Supplementary Route - Grand
Av. & MacArthur Blvd., Oakland,
to Monterey Av. & Hopkins Av.
via MacArthur Blvd., Park Blvd.,
Mountain Blvd., Broadway
Terrace, Broadway, College Av.,
Alcatraz Av., and Sacramento St.

Alcatraz Av. at Adeline St. Weekdays: 6:45
AM to 7:30 AM
and 3:45 PM to
4:30 PM
- -