Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-5
Route # Service Description Stops Serving Plan Area Hour of Service Frequency
Peak Off Peak
800 2 All Nighter Route - Richmond
BART to San Francisco, via San
Pablo Av., University Av.,
Telegraph Av. and downtown
Oakland
Shattuck Ave at Dwight
Way, Parker St., and
Derby St., Adeline St. at
Ward St. and Oregon St.,
and Ashby Av. at Adeline
St.

Weekdays: 12:15
AM to 6:30 AM;
Weekends: 11:40
PM to 8:20 AM
30 min 60 min
F Transbay Route - UC Campus to
San Francisco via Shattuck Av.,
Adeline St. 40th St., and
Emeryville
Shattuck Ave at Dwight
Way and Parker St.,
Adeline St. at Oregon St.,
Ashby Av., Ashby BART,
and Alcatraz Av.

Weekdays: 5:10
AM to 1:30 AM;
Weekends: 5:00
AM to 12:45 AM
30 min 30 min
51B Rockridge BART to Berkeley
Amtrak and Berkeley Marina,
via College Av., Bancroft Way /
Durant Av., Shattuck St.,
Downtown Berkeley, and
University Av.

University Av. at
Sacramento St. and Acton
St.

Monday-Sunday:
5:00 AM to 12:15
AM
15 min 15 min
52 University Village to UC
Berkeley Campus, via University
Village, Cedar St., Sacramento
St., and University Av., looping
the UC campus via Hearst Av.,
Gayley St., Bancroft Way, and
Shattuck Av. (Downtown
Berkeley)
Cedar St. and Sacramento
St; Sacramento St. and
Delaware St. (North
Berkeley BART), and
University Av.

Monday-Sunday:
8:15 AM to 8:30
PM
20 min 20 min
65 Downtown Berkeley to
Lawrence Hall of Science or
Senior Ave. and Grizzly Peak
Blvd. via Hearst Ave., Euclid Ave.
and Grizzly Peak Blvd.

Addison St & Oxford St.

Euclid Ave & Grizzly Peak
Blvd, Centennial Dr &
Lawrence Hall of Science
Monday – Frid ay:
7:33 AM – 7:34
PM
1 hr 1 hr
67 Downtown Berkeley to Grizzly
Peak Blvd. and Spruce St. via
Oxford St. and Spruce St.

Downtown Berkeley BART
Oxford Street
Spruc
e Street
Beloit Avenue
Monday – Friday:
8:12 AM – 6:42
PM
30 min 30 min
72 Hilltop Mall to Jack London
Square via Moyers Rd., Contra
Costa College, San Pablo Ave., El
Cerrito del Norte BART, and
downtown Oakland.

El Cerrito Plaza BART
El Cerrito del Norte
BART12th Street/Oakland
City Center BART19th St.

Oakland BART Oakland
Jack London Square Ferry
Terminal Hilltop Mall
Contra Costa College
Monday – Friday:
4:50 AM – 7:50
PM
Weekends: 5:29
AM – 8:28 PM
24 min

30 min
24 min

30 min
72M Point Richmond to Jack London
Square via Garrard Blvd.,
Macdonald Ave., El Cerrito del
Norte BART, San Pablo Ave. and
downtown Oakland.

San Pablo Avenue Everyday: 520 AM
– Midnight
- -

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

4.14-6
Route # Service Description Stops Serving Plan Area Hour of Service Frequency
Peak Off Peak
72R San Pablo Rapid — Con tra Costa
College to Jack London Square
via El Cerrito del Norte BART,
San Pablo Ave. and downtown
Oakland.

San Pabl o Avenue Monday – Friday
6:30 AM – 8:00
PM
Weekends: 7:30
AM – 7:30 PM
- -
88 From Downtown Berkeley to
Lake Merritt BART via University
Ave., Sacramento St., Market St.
and downtown Oakland.

Downtown Berkeley
University Avenue
Sacramento Street
Everyday: 5:30 AM
– 10:50 PM
20 min 20 min
604 North Berkeley BART to Oakland
Hebrew Day School, Head Royce
High School and Bentley School
via University Av., Southside
Berkeley, College Av. and Ashby
Av.

North Berkeley BART;
Sacramento St. and
University Av.

Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday, and
Friday: 8:05 AM to
8:45 AM and 3:30
PM to 4:15 PM
- -
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
- -
800 All Nighter Route - Richmond
BART to San Francisco, via San
Pablo Av., University Av.,
Telegraph Av. and downtown
Oakland.

Shattuck Av. at Dwight
Way, Parker St., and
Derby St., Adeline St. at
Ward St. and Oregon St.,
and Ashby Av. at Adeline
St.

Weekdays: 12:15
AM to 6:30 AM;
Weekends: 11:40
PM to 8:20 AM
30 min 60 min
802 All Nighter. Berkeley Amtrak to
Uptown Oakland via San Pablo
Ave.

Berkeley Amtrak,
University Ave and San
Pablo Ave, 40
th St & San
Pablo Ave, T.L. Way (20th
St) & Broadway
Everyday: 12:41
AM- 4:41 AM
60 min 60 min
851 All Nighter. Downtown Berkeley
to Fruitvale BART via Southside
Berkeley (UC campus), College
Ave., Broadway, Uptown
Oakland, Downtown Oakland,
Webster St., Santa Clara Ave.,
Broadway, and Fruitvale Ave.

The 851 bus (Downtown
Berkeley) has 57 stops
departing from Fruitvale
BART and ending in
Shattuck Av & Allston
Way.

Everyday: 12:15
AM – 4:15 AM
60 min 60 min
E Caldecott Ln. and Tunnel Rd. to
Salesforce Transit Center, San
Francisco via Claremont Ave.

Caldecott Lane and
Tunnel Road
Mondays –
Fridays:4:20 PM –
6:55 PM
- -
F UC campus to Salesforce Transit
Center, San Francisco via
Shattuck Ave., Adeline St.,
Market St., 40th St., and
Shellmound St.

Hearst Avenue
Bancroft Way
Shattuck Avenue
Adeline Street
Everyday: 12:10
AM – 11:40 PM
30 min 30 min

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-7
Route # Service Description Stops Serving Plan Area Hour of Service Frequency
Peak Off Peak
FS Solano Ave. & Colusa St. to
Salesf
orce Transit Center, San
Francisco via Shattuck Ave. and
University Ave
Thousand Oaks
Shattuck Avenue
University Avenue
M onday – Friday:
6:10 AM – 7:52
AM
- -
G Salesforce Transit Center, San
Francisco to El Cerrito Plaza
BART via I-80, University Ave.,
San Pablo Ave., Solano Ave.,
Colusa Ave. and Fairmount Ave.

University Avenue Monday – Friday
7:25 AM – 6:25
PM
- -
J Transbay Route - Richmond
BART to San Francisco, via
Sacramento St. and University
Av., Berkeley to Salesforce
Transit Center, San Francisco via
Sacramento St., Ashby Av. and
Christie St.

Sacramento St. and Ashby
Avenue and
University Av.

Weekdays: 7:00
AM to 9:00 AM
and 5:00 PM to
7:00 PM
60 min 60 min
Note: Service routes and times listed are reflective of pre-COVID19 pandemic conditions. 1 Transit information reflects conditions from March 31, 2020 2 Transit information reflects conditions from August 9, 2020 Source: AC Transit 2022a
d. Pedestrian Conditions
Pedestrian facilities include crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off-street paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities. A continuous sidewalk network is provided in Berkeley connecting to nearby residential, commercial, and retail facilities. Crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided at major intersections. e. Bicycle Conditions
Based on the City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan (City of Berkeley 2017), bicycle facilities are classified into several types, including:
 Class 1 Multi-Use Paths – provide a completely separated, exclusive right-of-way for bicycling, walking, and other non-motorized uses.
 Class 2 Bicycle Lanes – are striped, preferential lanes for one-way bicycle travel on roadways.

Some Class 2 bicycle lanes include striped buffers that add a few feet of separation between the bicycle lane and traffic lane or parking aisle.
 Class 3 Bicycle Routes – are signed bicycle routes where riders share a travel lane with motorists. Bicycle boulevards (Class 3E) are a special type of Class 3 bicycle route where the shared travel way has low motor vehicle volumes and low speed that prioritize convenient and safe bicycle travel through traffic calming strategies, wayfinding signage, and traffic control adjustments
 Class 4 Cycletrack – is an on-street bicycle lane that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical element or barrier, such as a curb, bollards, or parking aisle.

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

4.14-8
According to the City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan, Berkeley has the fourth highest bicycle commute mode share (8.5 percent) of any city in the United States. Total, there is an estimated 51 miles of bikeways throughout Berkeley (City of Berkeley 2017).

4.14.2 Regulatory Setting
Local, regional, State, and Federal policies regulate many aspects of the City’s transportation system, including planning and programming; design; operations; and funding. While the City of Berkeley has primary responsibility for the maintenance and operation of local transportation facilities, there is ongoing coordination between Berkeley staff and regional, state, and federal agencies to plan, manage, and enhance the City’s transportation assets; these entities include Alameda County, Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Caltrans, regional transit providers and Federal Highway Administration. a. State Regulations
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans is the owner and operator of the state highway system, which includes facilities in and around Berkeley. In its Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), 2020, Caltrans developed an approach for evaluating the transportation impacts of land use projects and plans on state highway facilities; this document does not address the impacts of transportation projects (Caltrans 2020). In accordance with current CEQA requirements, the TISG does not consider vehicle delay in its evaluation of transportation impacts, instead focusing on VMT. The purposes of the TISG include providing guidance to lead agencies regarding when they should analyze potential impacts to the state highway system; to aid Caltrans staff in reviewing projects; and to ensure consistency in the assessment of impacts and identification of non-capacity increasing mitigation measures.

State Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in August 2008, directs each of the state’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23, 2010, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted final regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035.

The intent of SB 375 is to use the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to integrate regional land use, regional housing need allocations (RHNA), environmental, and transportation planning to ensure efficient regional planning in the future that leads to reduced greenhouse gas emissions from land and transportation uses. As a result of SB 375, preparation of local RHNA Plans are required to be coordinated and consistent with the RTP/SCS for the length of the housing element cycle. Local governments play a large role in helping to develop the transportation and land use scenarios used in the SCS development process.

State Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743, passed in 2013, resulted in several statewide CEQA changes. It required the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new metrics for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas (TPAs) and allows OPR to extend use of the metrics beyond TPAs. OPR selected VMT as the preferred

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-9
transportation impact metric and applied their discretion to require its use statewide. This legislation also established that aesthetic and parking effects of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site within a TPA are not significant impacts on the environment. The revised CEQA Guidelines that implement this legislation became effective on December 28, 2018, and state that vehicle LOS and similar measures related to delay shall not be used as the sole basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts for land use projects, and that as of July 1, 2020, this requirement shall apply statewide. The OPR “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA” (December 2018) includes specifications for VMT methodology and recommendations for significance thresholds, screening of project that may be presumed to have less than significant impacts, and mitigation. Lead agencies ultimately have the discretion to set or apply their own significance thresholds, provided they are based on substantial evidence.

Screening criteria
include:
 Small projects: Th e Technical Advisory concludes that, absent any information to the contrary, projects that generate 110 trips per day or less may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.
 Projects near transit stations: Projects located within ½ mile of an “existing major transit stop” or an “existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor” would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.
 Affordable residential development: Projects consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact on VMT because they may improve jobs-housing balance and/or otherwise generate less VMT than market-based units.
 Redevelopment projects: If a proposed redevelopment project leads to a net overall decrease in VMT (when compared against the VMT of the existing land uses), the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact.
 Local-serving retail: Trip lengths may be shortened and VMT reduced by addi ng “local-serving”
retail opportunities that improve retail destination proximity. Page 17 of the Technical Advisory generally describes retail development including stores less than 50,000 square feet as local- serving. In May 2020, OPR staff indicated during online webinars that any retail building that is 50,000 square feet or less may be considered local-serving.

The Technical Advisory recommends thresholds for a general plan, area plan, or community plan where it may have a significant impact on trans
portation if proposed new residential, office, or retail land uses would in aggregate exceed the respective thresholds recommended for land use projects.

For example, a general plan’s residential generated VMT under cumulative conditions would be compared to 15 percent below the baseline citywide or region-wide average to determine impact significance. Another approach commonly used by local and regional agencies is to determine the total VMT per capita (or service population) for the area under consideration for baseline conditions and compare it to the total VMT per capita with the proposed plan in the horizon year. If the VMT per capita is lower in the horizon year with the plan than the VMT per capita under existing conditions, the plan may have a less than significant impact on VMT.

Other key guidance includes:

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

4.14-10
 VMT is the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impact.  OPR recommends tour- an d trip-based
travel models to estimate VMT, but ultimately defers to local agencies to determine the appropriate tools.
 OPR recommends measuring VMT for residential and office projects on a “per rate” basis.

Specifically, OPR recommends VMT per capita for residential projects and VMT per employee for office projects.
 OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent (15 percent) below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold (page 10). In other words, an office project that generates VMT per employee that is more than 85 percent of the regional VMT per employee could result in a significant impact. OPR notes that this threshold is supported by evidence that connects this level of reduction to the State’s emissions goals.  For retail projects, OPR recommends measuring the net decrease or increase in VMT in the planning area with and without the project. The recommended impact threshold is any increase in total VMT.
 Cities and counties still have the ability to use measures of delay such as LOS for other plans, studies, or network monitoring. However, according to CEQA section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, “effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”
California Building Code
California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC is based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code with modifications specific for California conditions. The CBC provides fire and emergency equipment access standards for public roadways, which include specific width, grading, design and other specifications for roads which provide access for fire apparatus. Street modifications in the City of Berkeley are subject to these and other modified State standards. The City of Berkeley adopted the 2019 edition of the CBC in 2019. b. Regional
Alameda County Transportation Commission
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) coordinates transportation planning efforts throughout Alameda County and programs federal, state, regional, and local funding for project planning and implementation. Through its Congestion Management Program (CMP), Alameda CTC oversees and monitors the operations and performance of roadways in the CMP network, which consist of freeways and major arterials that provide connectivity in the County.

The Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP requires local jurisdictions to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed land use changes (e.g.., General Plan amendments, and developments estimated to generate 100 or more net new PM peak hour automobile trips) on the CMP network. c. Local
City of Berkeley General Plan
The Transportation Element of the Berkeley General Plan (2001) contains the following policies and actions relevant to the proposed project:

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-11
Policy T-2: Public Transportation Improvements. Encourage regional and local efforts to maintain and enhance public transportation services and seek additional regional funding for public and alternative transportation improvements.

Policy T-4: Transit First Policy. Give priority to alternative transportation and transit over single- occupant vehicles on Transit Routes identified on the Transit Network map.

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 shopper shuttles connecting all shopping districts throughout the city Policy T-12: Education and Enforcement. Support, and when possible require, education and enforcement programs to encourage carpooling and alternatives to single-occupant automobile use, reduce speeding, and increase pedestrian, bicyclist, and automobile safety.

Policy T-14: Private Employers. Encourage private employers to reduce the demand for automobile travel through transportation demand management programs that include elements such as:

1. Trip reduction incentives such as Commuter Check and Eco-Pass.

2. Flexible work hours and telecommuting to reduce peak-hour commute congestion.

3. Carpool and vanpool incentives to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use.

4. Provision of mass transit pass/credit instead of free employee parking (parking "cash-out" programs).

5. Providing bicycle facilities.

6. Market pricing mechanisms for employee parking to reduce automotive use and discourage all-day parking.

7. Local hiring policies.

8. Numerical goals for trip reduction

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

4.14-12
Policy T-15: Local Hiring. Establish Berkeley residency as a preference for hiring, and encourage other public employers, institutions, and private employers to hire locally. (Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-1.)
Policy T-16: Access by Proximity. Improve access by increasing proximity of residents to services, goods, and employment centers. (Also see Land Use Policies LU-13 and LU-23, Housing Policy H-16, and Environmental Management Policy EM-41 Action B.) Action A. Locate essential commercial and other services in transit-oriented locations to reduce the need for cars and enable people living near transit and services to reduce auto trips.

Action B. Encourage higher density housing and commercial infill development that is consistent with General Plan and zoning standards in areas adjacent to existing public transportation services.

Action D. Encourage siting of child-care facilities and other services in large residential or commercial facilities to reduce traffic impacts associated with child-care drop-off and pick- up.

Action E. In locations served by transit, consider reduction or elimination of parking requirements for residential development.

Policy T-17: Transportation Planning. Involve local residents, businesses, and institutions in all stages of transportation planning
Policy T-18: Transportation Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled. 1 When considering
transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City shall consider how a plan or project affects all modes of transportation, including transit riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists, to determine the transportation impacts of a plan or project. Plans and projects shall be designed to deliver significant benefits to travel by pedestrians, bicycle, or transit, and/or reduced impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and safety. For the purposes of CEQA, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) shall be the metric used to analyze the transportation impacts of a plan or project.

Policy T-19: Air Quality Impacts. Continue to encourage innovative technologies and programs such as clean-fuel, electric, and low-emission cars that reduce the air quality impacts of the automobile. (Also see Environmental Management Policies EM-18 through EM-22.) Action A. Establish bicycle and low-emission vehicle preferred parking areas.

Action B. Install electric vehicle charging stations in all City-owned parking facilities downtown and at major parking facilities and employment centers.

Policy T-24: Ashby Avenue. Take actions necessary to reduce congestion, improve pedestrian and bicycle crossings, and improve the quality of life for residents on Ashby Avenue.

Policy T-33: Disabled Parking and Passenger Zones. Ensure adequate disabled parking and passenger drop-off zones.

1 Amendment to Policy T-18: Level of Service can be found in the City of Berkeley VMT Criteria and Thresholds, June 29, 2020. file:///C:/Users/gcarsky/Downloads/2020-11-17%20Item%2018%20General%20Plan%20Amendment%20%20Vehicle%20Miles.pdf

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-13
Action A. Require access to adequate disabled parking and passenger drop-off zones in all new commercial and residential developments.

Policy T-39: High-Tech Parking. To make the most efficient use of available land, encourage consideration of high-tech computerized parking (e.g., lifts and or "robotics") when replacing existing public parking or when providing off-street parking for multi-family residential projects.

Policy T-40: Parking Impacts. When considering parking impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act for residential projects with more than two units located in the Avenue Commercial, Downtown, or High Density Residential land use classifications, any significant parking impacts identified that result from the project should be mitigated by improving alternatives to automobile travel and thereby reducing the need for parking.

Examples include improvements to public transportation, pedestrian access, car sharing programs, and bicycle facility improvements. Parking impacts for these projects should not be mitigated through the provision of additional parking on the site. The City finds that:

1. Parking supply and demand may easily be adjusted by changing local pricing policies and by changing how the supply is managed.

2. As the parking supply increases or parking costs decrease, automobile use becomes a more attractive transportation alternative and demand for parking increases. As parking supply decreases and its price increases, demand decreases.

3. Increasing the parking supply increases automobile use, which causes a measurably negative impact on the environment
Policy T-41: Structured Parking. Encourage consolidation of surface parking lots into structured parking facilities and redevelopment of surface lots with residential or commercial development where allowed by zoning.

Action C. Provide parking and recharging facilities for alternative vehicles such as bicycles and electric and low-emission vehicles.

Action D. Whenever feasible, orient automobile access to parking lots and garages away from designated bicycle ways and boulevards and avoid blank walls along pedestrian ways.

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

Action A. Expand the supply of highly secure bicycle parking near transit hubs and commercial areas.

Action B. Encourage business owners to provide bicycle parking, showers, and lockers for employees and bicycle parking for customers.

Policy T-49: Disabled Access. Improve pedestrian access for the entire disabled community.

Action B. Use regulation and incentives to require or encourage accessibility upgrades for private businesses.

Action C. Encourage businesses to exceed the minimum standards set by the ADA "readily achievable barrier removal" requirement.

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

4.14-14
Policy T-50: Sidewalks. Maintain and improve sidewalks in residential and commercial pedestrian areas throughout Berkeley and in the vicinity of public transportation facilities so that they are safe, accessible, clean, attractive, and appropriately lighted.

Policy T-51: Pedestrian Priority. When addressing competing demands for sidewalk space, the needs of the pedestrian shall be the highest priority.

Policy T-52: Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian crossings throughout the city.

City of Berkeley VMT Regulations
CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b) indicates that land use projects would have a significant impact if the project resulted in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance. In June 2020, the City of Berkeley adopted the following thresholds of significance for VMT analysis according to the guidance from OPR:
 A residential project’s VMT impact is considered less-than-significant if its household VMT per capita is at least 15 percent below the regional average household VMT per capita.  An employment-generating project’s VMT impact is considered less-than-significant if its home- work VMT per worker is at least 15 percent below the regional average home-work VMT per worker.

In addition, the City of Berkeley has developed screening criteria to provide project applicants with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in potentially significant VMT impacts. If the screening criteria are met by a project, the applicant would not need to perform a detailed VMT assessment for their project. The City’s screening criteria include the following:
 Projects within Transit Priority Areas
 Low-income housing projects
 Small Projects: Projects defined as generating 836 daily VMT or less  Locally Serving Public Facility: Projects that generally encompass government, civic, cultural, health, and infrastructure uses which contribute to and support community needs and mostly generate trips within the local area
 Projects in Low VMT Areas: 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 CTC model (see Figure 4.6-1) and include the following:
 Residential projects will be screened out if located in an area that has household VMT per capita that is 15 percent lower than the baseline regional average.  Office and industrial projects will be screened out if located in an area that has homework VMT per worker that is 15 percent lower than the baseline regional average.

General Plan Policy T-18 indicates that for the purposes of CEQA, VMT shall be the metric used to analyze the transportation impacts of a plan or project. The City shall also focus on elements such as safety, site access, and circulation when assessing a plan or project’s impact.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-15
City of Berkeley Vision Zero Resolution and Vision Zero Action Plan The Berkeley City Council adopted a Vision Zero Policy (Resolution 68,371-N.S.) in March 2018, with a goal of eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries by 2028. This resolution directed a Vision Zero task force to develop a Vision Zero Action Plan, which was subsequently created and approved by City Council in March 2020. The plan contains the following policies relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 1.1: Collaboration with City departments, regional and community partners, and mobility providers to achieve Vision Zero Goals.

Policy 2.1: Prioritize high-injury streets and the most vulnerable street users.

Policy 2.2: Design for vulnerable users of the transportation network, including people of all ages and abilities.

Policy 2.3: Deliver Vision Zero traffic safety infrastructure improvements both reactively and proactively.

Policy 3.1: Create a culture of traffic safety by promoting awareness through public information programs and campaigns.

City of Berkeley Complete Street Policy
The Berkeley City Council adopted a Complete Streets Policy (Resolution 65,978-N.S.) in December 2012, to guide future street design and repair activities. “Complete Streets” describes a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, emergency vehicles, seniors, children, youth, and families.

City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
The City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan, approved by Berkeley City Council in May 2017, contains the following policies and actions relevant to the proposed project:

Policy PL-1. Integrate bicycle network and facility needs into all City planning documents and capital improvement projects
Actions
 Follow a multi-disciplinary project scoping process that incorporates the needs of all modes and stakeholders, both internal and external; the design process should include the City divisions, departments, and staff responsible for emergency response, parking, law enforcement, maintenance, and other affected areas.
 Ensure that all traffic impact studies, analyses of proposed street changes, and development projects address impacts on bicycling and bicycling facilities. Specifically, the following should be considered:
 Consistency with General Plan, Area Plan, and Bicycle Plan policies and recommendations;
 Impact on the existing bikeway network;
 Degree to which bicycle travel patterns are altered or restricted by the projects; and

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

4.14-16
 Safety of future bicycle operations (based on project conformity to Bicycle Plan design guidelines and City, State, and Federal design standards).

Policy PL-2. When considering transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City shall consider how a plan or project affects bicyclists per Berkeley General Plan Policy T-18.

Actions
 Integrate Vehicle Miles Traveled transportation impact analysis thresholds as a State- mandated alternative to Level of Service. Work with the Alameda County Transportation Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to ensure conformity with County and Regional travel models.
 Establish new City traffic analysis standards that consider all modes of transportation, including pedestrians, bicycles, and transit in addition to automobiles, consistent with a comprehensive, integrated transportation network for all users as described in the City of Berkeley Complete Streets Policy. Utilize Level of Traffic Stress to quantify bicycle transportation in this network-based Complete Streets Policy context.

City of Berkeley Pedestrian Plan
The City of Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted in June 2010 and updated in 2020 is a critical component of the City’s efforts to meet diverse travel needs and improve mobility for everyone who is walking and traveling with an assistive device in Berkeley. The goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan include the following:
 Increase safety and comfort for people walking.
 Increase equity and transportation choices for all.
 Improve public health and environmental sustainability.

These goals listed in the Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan reiterate and emphasize the General Plan policies and actions pertaining to pedestrians. Policies relevant to the proposed project include General Plan Policies T-12 (Education and Enforcement), T-49 (Disabled Access), T-50 (Sidewalks), and T-51 (Pedestrian Priority), which are listed above.

City of Berkeley Municipal Code
The City of Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) has the following applicable sections related to transportation:
 BMC Chapter 23.334, Transportation Demand Management. This chapter implements the City’s goals reduce vehicle trips, encourage public transit use and promote bicycle and pedestrian safety by requiring a transportation demand management (TDM) program for residential projects with ten or more units, including residential portions of mixed-use projects.  BMC Section 23.322.090, Bicycle Parking. This section sets standards for the provision of bicycle parking for residential and non-residential uses based on the zoning district for non-residential projects and number of dwelling units for residential projects.  BMC Section 23.304.100, Site Features in Residential Districts. This section requires multi- family projects have an unobstructed walkway for pedestrian access from the public right-of-

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-17
way to the building and that the walkway be separated and physically protected from a driveway or off-street parking spaces with a minimum 2-foot wide landscaped strip.

4.14.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Criteria and Methodology
Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to transportation and circulation would be considered potentially significant if implementation of the project would:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;

2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b);

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment); or

4. Result in inadequate emergency access.

As described in Section 4.14.2, Regulatory Setting, to implement SB 743, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated to change the criteria for determining what constitutes a significant traffic-related environmental impact to rely upon quantification of VMT instead of LOS. As of July 1, 2020, the VMT-based approach in Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines applies statewide for the purpose of assessing traffic-related impacts under CEQA. As a result, this analysis uses the metric of VMT to determine the project’s traffic-related impact. Section 15064.3(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that land use “projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.” According to OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research in December 2018, a 15 percent reduction in VMT per capita from existing development is “generally achievable” and supportive of State goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (OPR 2018). However, State guidance allows localities to set their own VMT standards based on substantial supporting evidence.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Impact TRA-1 THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE, OR

POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING TRANSIT, ROADWAY, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The EIR building assumptions include approximately 19,098 residential units at the EIR Sites Inventory, middle housing rezoning districts, and in the Southside area. Given the potential number of new residents and associated vehicle trips, it is expected these would contribute to an increase in traffic on arterials and local streets in Berkeley. However, as described in Section 4.14.2, Regulatory Setting, to implement SB 743, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated to change the criteria for determining what constitutes a significant traffic-related environmental impact to rely upon quantification of VMT instead of LOS. Therefore, traffic congestion is no longer considered an impact under CEQA.

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

4.14-18
Development under the proposed HEU would increase Berkeley’s population, especially along transit corridors, in order to encourage alternative modes of transportation, which may result in an increase in transit ridership for AC Transit and BART. However, OPR’s technical advisory states that because the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote “the development of multimodal transportation networks,” when evaluating impacts to multimodal transportation networks, lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact. An infill development may add riders to transit systems and the additional boarding and alighting may slow transit vehicles, but it also adds destinations, improving accessibility and proximity. Such development is considered to improve the regional vehicle flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network. Further, AC Transit and BART monitor and plan for anticipated changes in local and regional ridership levels and increased demand through their ongoing evaluation of routes, schedules, ridership, and capacity availability. AC Transit conducts periodic route restructuring and service frequency evaluations such as through their Short-Range Transit Plan (AC Transit 2019) and capital improvement project planning (AC Transit 2022b). BART also has a number of ongoing projects to improve facilities, modernize technology, add train cars, improve safety, and provide capacity relief (BART 2022). The proposed HEU would not conflict with these ongoing efforts.

With respect to pedestrian and bicycle access, as part
of the City’s entitlement process, future
development is required to comply with existing regulations, including General Plan policies and Zoning regulations. Futu
re development under the HEU would be reviewed in accordance with the City’s Public Works Department Transportation Program standards, and the department would provide oversight engineering review to ensure that the project is constructed according to City standards. The project would be consistent with the City’s 2017 Bicycle Plan. The proposed project does not include any modifications to the public right-of-way, and therefore, would not preclude the installation of the planned or proposed bicycle facilities on the streets in the city. Developments facilitated by the proposed project would provide long-term and short-term bicycle parking in accordance with BMC Section 23.322.090 requirements to accommodate the bicycle parking demand generated by the project residents and would also be required to meet applicable requirements for pedestrian access under BMC Section 23.304.100 or other requirements as applicable.

Because the proposed HEU does not include modifications to the existing transportation network and individual future developments would be designed consistent with applicable bicycle and pedestrian facility requirements, the proposed HEU would not conflict with the City’s Bicycle Master Plan or the City’s Pedestrian Plan. At a programmatic level, the proposed HEU would not conflict with applicable program plans or policies related to the circulation system including the General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, Complete Streets Policy, or Pedestrian Plan. The proposed HEU would have a less than significant impact.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-19
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact TRA-2 THE PROPOSED HEU NOT CONFLICT OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15064.3, SUBDIVISION (B). THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The Housing Element Update would result in a significant transportation impact if it would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), which states for land use projects, “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)(4) states, “A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence.” VMT can be presented as total VMT, or as efficiency metrics expressed in VMT per capita, VMT per employ
ee, and VMT per service population on a typical day. Total VMT represents all VMT generated in the city, while VMT per resident, or employee is an efficiency metric that represents VMT generated on a typical day per person who lives and/or works in the City. VMT per capita is measured to evaluat
e residential projects, VMT per employee for employment projects, and VMT per service population a combination of land uses. For this housing element update, we generally use VMT per capita to assess impacts based on the proposed project.

The City of Berkeley has adopted thresholds to evaluate significant impacts for VMT. For residential uses, the City of Berkeley adopted the threshold of significance for VMT analysis according to the guidance from OPR that a residential project’s VMT impact is considered less-than-significant if its household VMT per capita is at least 15 percent below the regional average household VMT per capita. Therefore, an increase in the VMT per capita under the horizon year with the proposed HEU compared to the respective threshold (15 percent below the regional average VMT per capita) would be considered a significant impact. VMT thresholds by land use type are shown in Table 4.14-3
Table 4.14-3 VMT Thresholds by Land Use Type for Projects Land Use Type (Units) Regional Baseline Threshold
Residential (Hous ehold VMT Per Capita) 22.80 19.38
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2022
VMT was calculated for the Berkeley Housing Element update by Kittelson & Associates in June 2022 (see Appendix G). Table 4.14-4 summarizes the VMT for 2020 baseline, the applicable threshold, and the future VMT with the proposed housing element update. As shown in the table, the proposed HEU would result in a decreased VMT per capita in comparison to the baseline condition.

Residential VMT per capita would decrease by 3 percent, from 11.22 to 10.86, and is below the impact threshold of 19.38. These reductions indicate that the future residential development would provide more opportunities for Berkeley residents and employees to access jobs and services within the City and within shorter distances and by modes other than vehicle.

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

4.14-20
Table 4.14-4 VMT Results Summary
Units Bay Area Region Berkeley 2020 Berkeley 2031
Population 7,915,267 128,004 182,651
Residential VMT 180,468,151 1,436,244 1,983,715
Household VMT Per Capita 22.80 11.22 10.86
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2022
In summary, implementation of the HEU would result in VMT per capita below applicable thresholds and therefore would result in a less than significant impact.

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

Threshold 3: Woul d the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
Impact TRA-3 THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS BECAUSE OF A GEOMETRIC DESIGN FEATURE (E.G., SHARP CURVES OR DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS) OR INCOMPATIBLE USES (E.G., FARM EQUIPMENT). THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Adoption of the proposed HEU analyzes the amount of new housing units the City will accommodate during the document’s planning period and sets goals and policies for how this housing is implemented. It does not grant entitlements for any specific project or future development. Thus, the plan for new housing and the goals and policies needed to achieve that housing do not have a specific transportation safety impact or hazard. The proposed project would not include hazardous geometric design features or incompatible uses. Each housing application would be evaluated at the project specific level. Circulation components and geometric design features would be reviewed by the City Engineering division and would be in accordance with all applicable City standards and the building plan check process to minimize design hazards. Design review standards include standards for project access points, location, and design, sight lines, roadway modifications, provisions for bicycle and pedestrian transportation connections, and emergency access. As a result, impacts of the proposed project from design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant.

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

Threshold 4: Woul d the project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact TRA-4 THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The HEU process included an analysis of the amount of new housing units the City will accommodate during the document’s planning period, and the HEU sets goals and policies for how this housing is planned and built. It does not grant entitlements for any specific project or future development. Thus, the plan for new housing and the goals and policies needed to achieve that

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-21
housing do not have a specific emergency access impact. At the project specific level, future development under the proposed amendments 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. As described in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, as a part of development review, representatives from several City departments and representatives, including the Building and Safety Division, the Transportation Division, and the Fire Department, review the entitlement plan set to ensure compliance with egress requirements and other fire safety features. Future projects would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth in the most current adopted building codes and fire and life safety standards. Compliance with these standards is ensured through the City review and building plan check process. Based on the preceding, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation measures are required. c. Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Guidelines 15130(a) require that the cumulative effect of implementing a project be assessed to determine if the project’s incremental effect - together with that of other- would be cumulatively considerable. For the purposes of this analysis, the cumulative setting for thresholds 1, 3, and 4 includes the City of Berkeley, as effects associated with those thresholds tend to occur more locally or citywide, while the cumulative setting for Threshold 2, VMT impacts, includes development associated with the proposed HEU and Plan Bay Area 2040, the Bay Area’s RTP/SCS.

With respect to Threshold 2, the Housing Element Update envisions full buildout of the housing accommodated by the plan by 2031, with cumulative impacts being evaluated on full implementation. As discussed in Impact T-2, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT. Based on technical guidance from the OPR, if a project has a less than significant impact on VMT using an efficiency-based threshold (e.g., VMT per worker), this implies that the project would not contribute to a cumulative VMT impact. Therefore, the project would not have a considerable contribution to a cumulative VMT impact.

For Threshold 1, development under the proposed HEU in conjunction with development under the University of California Berkeley’s LRDP would also increase transit ridership for AC Transit and BART. However, as described above, based on OPR guidance, when evaluating impacts to multimodal transportation networks, lead agencies generally should not treat the addition to new transit users as an adverse impact. It is also assumed that planned development outside of the University campus would follow applicable standards for bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation and bicycle parking such that no cumulative impact with respect to bicycle and pedestrian plans or policies would occur.

For thresholds 3 and 4, it is also assumed that LRDP projects would follow applicable standards and regulations to ensure emergency access and avoid dangerous conditions. Generally, the University is proposing housing in projects outside of the main campus area, and these infill residential projects would not involve incompatible uses or dangerous design features. Overall, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

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

4.14-22

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-1

4.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed HEU on tribal cultural resources. The analysis is based on Assembly Bill 52 consultation conducted by the City of Berkeley and consulting Tribes.

4.15.1 Regulatory Setting
This section includes a discussion of the applicable State and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards governing cultural resources, which must be adhered to before and during implementation of the proposed project.
a. Federal Regulations
No federal regulations are applicable to this resource area. b. State Regulations
Assembly Bill 52 of 2014
AB 52 expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.2). AB 52 further requires that, when feasible, the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” and that meet either of the following criteria:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).

A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

In recognition of California Native American tribal sovereignty and the unique relationship of California local governments and public agencies with California Native American tribal governments and with respect to the interests and roles of project proponents, it is the intent AB 52 to accomplish the following:

Recognize that California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities.

Establish a new category of resources in CEQA called “tribal cultural resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation.

Establish examples of mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources that uphold the existing mitigation preference for historical and archaeological resources of preservation in place, if feasible.

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

4.15-2
Recognize that California Native American tribes may have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, which concern the tribal cultural resources with which they are traditionally and culturally affiliated (because CEQA calls for a sufficient degree of analysis, tribal knowledge about the land and tribal cultural resources at issue should be included in environmental assessments for projects that may have a significant impact on those resources).

In recognition of their governmental status, establish a meaningful consultation process between California Native American tribal governments and lead agencies, respecting the interests and roles of all California Native American tribes and project proponents, and the level of required confidentiality concerning tribal cultural resources, early in the CEQA environmental review process, so that tribal cultural resources can be identified, and culturally appropriate mitigation and mitigation monitoring programs can be considered by the decision-making body of the lead agency.

Recognize the unique history of California Native American tribes and uphold existing rights of all California Native American tribes to participate in, and contribute their knowledge to, the environmental review process pursuant to CEQA.

Ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents have information available, early in CEQA environmental review process, for purposes of identifying and addressing potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources and to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process.

Enable California Native American tribes to manage and accept conveyances of, and act as caretakers of, tribal cultural resources.

Establish that a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.

The formal consultation process requires lead agencies to work with California tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. This includes those that have previously requested notice and that are listed by the State as having expertise regarding potential resources and impacts. Consultation must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified or adopted.

Senate Bill 18 of 2004
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” Codes Governing Human Remains
The disposition of human remains is governed by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 and falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). If human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-3
responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98, will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal. c. Local Regulations
City of Berkeley General Plan
As part of the City of Berkeley’s General Plan, the Urban Design and Preservation Element outlines guidance for future development and preservation. The General Plan does not explicitly outline any guidance for Tribal Resources. Policies related to cultural resources include the following:

Policies
Policy UD-1 Techniques. Use a wide variety of regulatory, incentive, and outreach techniques to suitably protect Berkeley’s existing built environment and cultural heritage.

Policy UD-2 Regulation of Significant Properties. Increase the extent of regulatory protection that applies to structures, sites, and areas that are historically or culturally significant.

Policy UD-12 Range of Incentives. Seek to maintain and substantially expand the range and scale of incentives that the City and/or other entities make available in Berkeley for the preservation of historic and cultural resources.

Policy UD-20 Alterations. Alterations to a worthwhile building should be compatible with the buildings original architectural character.

Policy UD-21 Directing Development. Use City incentives and zoning provisions to direct new development toward locations where significant historic structures or structures contributing to the character of an area will not need to be removed.

Policy UD-36 Information on Heritage. Promote, and encourage others to promote, understanding of Berkeley’s built and cultural heritage, the benefits of conserving it, and how to sensitively do that.

4.15.2 Setting
The proposed project lies in the San Francisco Bay Area archaeological region (Milliken et al. 2007, Moratto 1984). Milliken et al. (2007) generally divided the prehistoric chronology of the Bay Area into five periods: The Early Holocene (8,000-3,500 BCE [Before Common Era]), Early Period (3500- 500 BCE), Lower Middle Period (500 BCE to 430 CE), the Upper Middle Period (430-1050 CE), and the Late Period (1050 CE-contact).

It is presumed that early Paleoindian groups lived in the area prior to 8,000 BCE; however, no evidence for that period has been discovered in the Bay Area to date (Milliken et al. 2007). Sites dating to this period may be submerged or deeply buried as a result of rising sea levels and widespread sediment deposition that has occurred since the Terminal Pleistocene (Byrd et al. 2017).

For this reason, the Terminal Pleistocene Period (ca. 11,700-8,000 BCE) is not discussed here.

The earliest intensive study of archaeology of the San Francisco Bay Area began with N. C. Nelson of the University of California, Berkeley, between 1906 and 1908. He documented over 400 shell mounds throughout the area. Nelson was the first to identify the Bay Area as a discrete archaeological region (Moratto 1984).

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

4.15-4
a. Ethnography and Ethnohistory
The Huchiun people lived in Berkeley when Spanish soldiers and missionaries arrived in the Bay Area. Huchiun territory extended “along the East Bay shore from Temescal Creek…north to the lower San Pablo and Wildcat Creek drainages in the present area of Richmond” (Milliken 1995:243).

The names of two Huchiun villages – Genau and Junchaque – are known from Mission records, but their exact location is unknown (Milliken 1995:243). Huchiun presence near Temescal Creek, approximately four miles to the southwest, in Oakland, is attested in its Mexican-era name, “Arroyo del Temescal o Los Juchiyunes.”
The Huchiun were one of the groups of the Ohlone people who lived along the east, west, and south shores of San Francisco Bay and in the Santa Cruz Mountains, Salinas Valley, and Monterey Bay area.

The Ohlone utilized a wide range of resources in a very favorable environment. Those populations living adjacent to the great bays of the region relied heavily on shellfish and aquatic animals for food. In the interior, plant foods like acorns were gathered and stored in great quantity. Large game like deer, elk, and antelope were hunted. Game birds, waterfowl, fish, and shellfish were other major food sources that thrived in the nearby sloughs and marshes of San Francisco Bay (Milliken 1995:16-18; Levy 1978).

Ohlone society was organized in local tribes of 200-400 people living in semi-permanent villages made up of round, domed, or conical thatch homes with frames and a center hearth. Tribelets controlled fixed territories averaging 10 to 12 miles in diameter (Kroeber 1925:219; Milliken et al. 2007). Hereditary village leaders, who could be male or female, played an important role in conflict resolution, receiving guests, directing ceremonies, organizing food-gathering expeditions, and leading war parties but did not otherwise exercise direct authority (Levy 1978:487). Despite their autonomy, intermarriage between tribelets appears to have been frequent (Milliken 1995:22-24).

The Huchiun spoke the Chochenyo dialect of the Ohlone language, which was spoken along the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay prior to 1770. Ohlone/Costanoan is a branch of the Yok-Utian subfamily of the Penutian languages, which are spoken along the Pacific Coast from Central California to southeast Alaska. Penutian speakers seem to have entered central California from the northern Great Basin around 4000-4500 years ago and arrived in the San Francisco Bay Area about 1500 years ago, displacing speakers of Hokan languages (Golla 2007:74). b. Assembly Bill 52 Consultation
The City of Berkeley prepared and mailed AB 52 notification letters on November 18, 2021 to tribes listed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Under AB 52, tribes have 30 days to request consultation from receipt of the notification letters.

On November 24, 2021, the Confederated Villages of Lisjan responded to request consultation under AB 52. The City of Berkeley met with the Confederated Villages of Lisjan over teleconference on December 15, 2021, to discuss the project and proposed mitigation measures. The Confederated Villages of Lisjan requested additional information about the physical extent of the project area, and whether the proposed project could result in changes in areas of tribal concern, specifically the historic Berkeley waterfront/shoreline and Indian Rock. The Confederated Villages of Lisjan also requested drafts of the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of the EIR to allow their review of the sections’ historical portrayal of tribal groups.

On February 10, 2022, the City of Berkeley communicated by email with the Confederated Villages of Lisjan and confirmed that the project area does not include any areas adjacent to the historic waterfront/shoreline.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-5
On June 27, 2022, the City of Berkeley communicated by email with the Confederated Villages of Lisjan and shared drafts of the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of the EIR and requested comments. No comments were received.

The Confederated Villages of Lisjan requested mitigation measures to be included in the EIR, and included a suggested mitigation measure, in an email to the City of Berkeley on July 8, 2022.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1, below, is based upon the proposed mitigation measure.

The City of Berkeley sent an email to the Confederate Villages of Lisjan on August 19, 2022 to conclude AB 52 consultation.

Correspondence related to AB 52 is included in Appendix H.

4.15.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be considered potentially significant if implementation of the project would:

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

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

4.15-6
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Impact TCR-1 DEVELOPMENT DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD OF THE PROPOSED HEU COULD

ADVERSELY IMPACT TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES DUE TO GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITY DURING CONSTRUCTION. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

As part of its tribal cultural resource identification process under AB 52 and SB 18, the City sent letters to 12 Native American Tribal representatives based on a list provided from the NAHC to be informed through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Tribes. To date, the City has received one response requesting additional consultation under AB 52 or SB 18.

This EIR analyzes potential impacts from implementation of a city-wide planning program and associated zoning changes. Base
d on the results of AB 52 and SB 18 consultation, tribal cultural resources may be present in areas near the waterfront and near Indian Rock. None of the EIR Inventory Sites or rezoning programs are within these areas. Therefore, tribal cultural resources in the Housing Element areas have not been identified.

Nonetheless, ground-disturbing activities associated with individual development projects during the planning period of the HEU could expose previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as tribal cultural resources and could be adversely affected by construction. Further, a high potential for Native American cultural resources exists within the Berkeley city limits, according to the City’s General Plan EIR.

Adherence to the requirements of AB 52 would require Tribal consultation with local California Native American Tribes prior to implementation of project activities subject to CEQA or SB 35. In compliance with AB 52, a determination of whether project-specific substantial adverse effects on tribal cultural resources would occur along with identification of appropriate project-specific avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required. Due to the programmatic nature of the proposed HEU it is not possible to fully determine impacts of specific projects on specific sites; however, no tribal cultural resources were identified during consultation. Future projects subject to CEQA and SB 35 would require project-specific tribal cultural resource identification and consultation, and the appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, the City has Standard Conditions of

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-7
Approval related to the protection of archaeological resources and human remains (including remains that are determined to be of Native American origin) that would apply to future development.

Project-specific tribal cultural resource consultation will occur when specific projects are implemented, and consultation conducted pursuant to the requirements of AB 52. Overall, this impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
The City’s Standard Conditions of Approval related to archaeological resources and human remains discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, would apply. In addition, the following mitigation measure would apply to future projects that are determined through tribal consultation to potentially affect tribal cultural resources. Other mitigation may also be required for future projects as determined through the tribal consultation process.

TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Monitoring
For future projects that are determined through tribal consultation to potentially affect tribal cultural resources, in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts to Native American cultural objects and human remains discovered during construction, tribal cultural monitors will be retained to monitor work done in areas of Tribal concern, as determined through tribal consultation. If Native American cultural objects and/or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until the objects have been inspected and evaluated by tribal cultural monitors and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards of the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR Part 61). The archaeologist shall, in accordance with the appropriate Guidelines, identify and evaluate the significance of the discovery and develop recommendations for treatment in consultation with the affected Tribe to ensure any impacts to the cultural resource are less than significant. The preferred mitigation is avoidance. If avoidance is not feasible, Project impacts shall be mitigated in consultation with the affected Tribe consistent with the CEQA Guidelines for Determining the Significance of and Impacts to Cultural Resource, Archaeological Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources. Such mitigation may include, but is not limited to, additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring and/or an archaeological data recovery program. A Native American monitor shall be retained to monitor the ground disturbance when it is suspected that a TCR might be encountered.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 would reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources, as actions would be taken to identify, avoid, and retain identified tribal cultural resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts
While there is the potential for significant cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources, it is anticipated that potential impacts associated with individual development projects would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to City policies and local and State regulations regarding the protection of such resources. With compliance with existing policies and regulations, future development in the city and region would be required to avoid or mitigate the loss of these resources. The proposed project’s impacts can be reduced to below a level of significance with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and Standard Conditions of

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

4.15-8
Approval (including City policies and local and State regulations) described above. Therefore, significant cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would not occur.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-1

4.16 Utilities and Service Systems
This section analyzes the effects of the proposed Housing Element Update on utilities and service systems. It considers potential impacts with respect to water supply and infrastructure, wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities, stormwater and drainage facilities, solid waste disposal, and electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities.

4.16.1 Setting
a. Existing Setting
The following section describes the existing setting with respect to water suppliers, wastewater treatment providers, stormwater drainage facilities, solid waste facilities, electricity and natural gas providers, and telecommunications facilities serving Berkeley. b. Water Supply
Water Service
Water service to Berkeley is provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), a publicly owned utility. EBMUD is responsible for service connections and water delivery to Alameda County and much of Contra Costa County. Approximately 1.4 million people are currently served by EBMUD’s water system in a 332-square mile area extending from Crockett on the north, southward to San Lorenzo and portions of Hayward (encompassing the major cities of Oakland and Berkeley), eastward from San Francisco Bay to Walnut Creek, and south through the San Ramon Valley (including Alamo, Danville, and San Ramon).

Approximately 90 percent of the EBMUD water supply originates from the melting snowpack of the Sierra Nevada. The principal water source is the Mokelumne River watershed, a 575-square mile area located in Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras Counties. Water is stored in reservoirs in the Sierra foothills and is transported by aqueduct to filter plants and reservoirs in the East Bay Hills. The other 10 percent of the District’s water comes from runoff on protected East Bay Area watershed lands (EBMUD 2020a). The water is treated at one of six water treatment plants (WTP) before delivery to customers.

EBMUD has water rights to 325 million gallons per day (MGD) from the Mokelumne River, subject to the availability of Mokelumne River runoff and numerous flow release obligations. EBMUD’s Mokelumne River flow commitments are determined by hydrology, water right priorities, agreements with state and federal regulatory agencies, California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) orders and decisions, federal directives, court decrees, and numerous agreements between EBMUD and other Mokelumne River users, both upstream and downstream of EBMUD’s Mokelumne River facilities (EBMUD 2020a).

EBMUD’s secondary water supply comes from local runoff from the East Bay area watersheds, which is stored in the terminal reservoirs within EBMUD’s service area. Water from local runoff is dependent on hydrologic conditions and terminal reservoir storage availability. Local runoff supplies the East Bay, on average of 23 MGD during normal hydrologic years.

In addition to the EBMUD water supply, Berkeley is comprised of 10 watersheds wholly or partially within City limits (not including the Marina). These watersheds eventually drain into EBMUD

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

4.16-2
reservoirs, through storm drains to creeks, into homes and businesses, from sinks to sewers, and back out as wastewater, which EBMUD cleans and releases to the San Francisco Bay.

Demand Management and Water Conservation
Northern California’s water resources, including EBMUD’s supplies, have been stressed by periodic drought cycles. Historical multi-year droughts have significantly diminished the supplies of water available to EBMUD’s customers. During the early stages of a drought and throughout a drought period, EBMUD imposes drought management programs to reduce customer demands, thereby saving water for the following year in case drought conditions continue. EBMUD has established a goal of reducing water use by 20 percent district-wide (EBMUD 2020a).

EBMUD completed development of a revised Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) 2040 in April of 2012, which is the District’s plan for providing water to its customers through 2040.

According to the WSMP, EBMUD’s water supplies are estimated to be sufficient during the planning period (2010-2040) in normal and single dry years. The WSMP 2040 emphasizes maximum conservation and recycling, with a total of 50 mgd of future supply to be provided from those two strategies. EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan 2015 (UWMP) (see Enclosure 2), which is required to be updated every five years, concludes that EBMUD has, and will have, adequate water supplies to serve existing and projected demand within the Ultimate Service Boundary during normal and wet years, but that deficits are projected for multi-year droughts. During multi-year droughts, EBMUD may require significant customer water use reductions and may also need to acquire supplemental supplies to meet customer demand. However, potential supplemental water supply projects that could be implemented to meet projected long-term water supplemental need during multi-year drought periods are also in the planning phases. Supplemental supply will also be needed to reduce the degree of rationing and to meet the need for water in drought years.

Water Distribution
EBMUD operates and maintains all treatment, storage, pumping, and distribution facilities within its service area and is responsible for all facilities up to the location of the water meter (EBMUD 2015).

In the vicinity of the project sites, EBMUD’s water distribution system provides potable water but is not presently equipped to distribute non-potable water. The pipeline system includes pipes of varying sizes, ranging from six to 16 inches in diameter. The majority of those pipes are eight inches in diameter, and to a lesser extent, 10 and 12 inches in diameter. c. Wastewater
EBMUD operates the large diameter interceptor sewer and provides municipal wastewater treatment for Berkeley. The EBMUD wastewater system serves approximately 740,000 people in an 88-square-mile area of Alameda and Contra Costa counties along the Bay’s east shore, extending from Richmond in the north, southward to San Leandro. EBMUD water customers include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, and irrigation water users (EBMUD 2020a). EBMUD has set up different wastewater districts. Berkeley’s wastewater service district (known as Special District No.1, or SD-1) was established as a separate wastewater district within EBMUD’s water service area in 1944. SD-1 treats domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater for cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont. SD-1 has a service capacity of 168 MGD.

The City of Berkeley owns and maintains its own sewage collection system. This system includes 254 miles of City-owned sanitary sewers, 7,200 manholes and other sewer structures, seven sewage

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-3
pump stations, and approximately 31,600 lower laterals serving an area of approximately 6,300 acres. Wastewater from East Bay communities to the wastewater treatment plant in Oakland near the entrance of the San Francisco Bay Bridge has a maximum flow of 168 million gallons per day.

Primary treatment is provided for up to 320 MGD. On average about 63 million gallons of wastewater was treated every day in 2020.

The City is responsible for maintenance and repair of the lower service laterals (typically located within the public right-of-way) from the property line cleanout to the connection to the City’s sewer main. The collection system serving the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) main campus, is owned and maintained by the University but discharges to the City’s sewer system, as does the sewer system serving the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Sewers range in age from 30 to 100 years with the average age of 60 years old.

The City of Berkeley also receives wastewater from small adjacent areas of the City of Albany, City of Oakland, and the Stege Sanitary District (Kensington). Wastewater generated in the City’s collection system is conveyed to the EBMUD wastewater interceptor system and is treated at EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) located near the eastern terminus of the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge. EBMUD also receives flows from six other “Satellite” collection system agencies: the cities of Alameda, Albany, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont, and the Stege Sanitary District (City of Berkeley 2019).

During the 1980s, EBMUD and the seven Satellite agencies conducted studies to address the problem of overflows and bypasses of untreated wastewater that occurred during large wet weather events due to excessive infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the collection systems. These studies resulted in a long-term program of construction of collection system relief sewers and sewer rehabilitation (called the East Bay I/I Correction Program), and construction by EBMUD of improvements at the MWWTP as well as three new remote Wet Weather Facilities (WWFs) designed to store, provide primary-level treatment, and discharge flows that exceeded the capacity of its interceptor system during wet weather.

Through the I/I Correction Program, the City has rehabilitated or replaced over 227 miles of its gravity sewers and associated lower laterals over the past 30 years. Since 2006, the City has also implemented a private sewer lateral (PSL) certification program requiring the inspection and/or repair or replacement of private (upper) sewer laterals at the time of property transfer or major building remodel. Approximately 36 percent of private laterals have been certified for compliance under the program as of 2019 (City of Berkeley 2019).

The MWWTP has a primary treatment capacity of 320 mgd and a secondary treatment capacity of 168 mgd. Storage basins provide plant capacity for a short-term hydraulic peak of 415 mgd. The average annual daily flow into the MWWTP is approximately 60 mgd, representing 36 percent of the plant’s secondary treatment capacity. Treated effluent is disinfected, dechlorinated, and discharged through a deepwater outfall one mile off the East Bay shoreline into San Francisco Bay.

In September of 2014, Berkeley agreed to a Consent Decree with EBMUD and the other six satellite collection system agencies. This decree required the City to do the following:
 Develop plans and programs to reduce inflow and infiltration.  Reduce sanitary sewer overflows.
 Repair and replace aging sewer pipelines.

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

4.16-4
Under the final Consent Decree requirements, Berkeley agreed to replace an average of 4.2 miles of sewer pipeline annually over a 10-year timeframe; replace noncompliant manholes; perform regular condition assessment, spot repairs, and increase required maintenance activities. To date, approximately 36% of City private sewer laterals have been tested or replaced (Berkeley 2022). The City has constructed several relief trunk sewers, completed sewer rehabilitation to reduce infiltration and inflow entry to the system, and removed any wet weather bypasses that existed at the time. Over the past 25 years, these efforts have addressed capacity-related overflows in the system.
d. Stormwater
The City’s storm drainage infrastructure consists of 93 miles of underground storm drain pipes and attendant appurtenances. Berkeley’s storm drain pipe infrastructure is designed to intercept, collect, and convey stormwater runoff from the public right-of-way directly to the Bay or nearby watercourses that ultimately discharge into the Bay. This infrastructure accepts runoff from public and private facilities (such as buildings, parking lots, and driveways) while protecting them from chronic inundation associated with wet weather. Much of the storm drainpipe infrastructure is over 80 years old and well past its useful life expectancy. The pipes dimensions range from 6” to 108” in diameter (Berkeley 2011).

Due to the age of the City’s drainage, Berkeley has adopted various Capital Improvement Projects.

These improvements are broken into two distinct categories which are rehabilitation and capital improvement. Rehabilitation or rehab describes construction-related work to correct structural or physical defects to maintain proper functioning and extending the useful life of existing storm drain pipe infrastructure. This can include the following methods:
 Correction of specific problems in a certain section of pipe (“Point Repairs”).  Reinforcement of the inside of an existing pipe with a hardened membrane (“Slip-lining”)  Replacement of a pipe with another pipe with the same hydraulic capacity.

Capital Improvement is any construction project that increases the hydraulic capacity of the storm drain pipe infrastructure. This can include various methods and means such as:
 Construction of new storm drain pipe infrastructure.
 Construction of pump stations or retrofit pipes to operate under pressurized conditions to force more discharge through the same size pipes.
 Enlargement of storm drain pipes by replacing existing pipelines with larger pipelines (“Upsizing”)
 Construction of detention facilities, such as Green Infrastructure/storage measures.

Rainwater management also includes bioswales, permeable paving, underground stormwater storage, rain gardens, and rainwater catchment.

Beyond the City’s proactive activities to protect water quality and steward watershed resources, there are also water quality regulations and requirements with which the City must comply and/or enforce. The Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) is the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit under which the City discharges urban runoff. It covers municipal dischargers in Alameda (such as the City of Berkeley as a Permittee), Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo. The MRP establishes quality and monitoring requirements for discharging urban runoff. These requirements

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-5
include the use of best management practices for new and significant redevelopment projects, public education and outreach, industrial inspections, and guidance to the City’s own Public Works staff to reduce or remove pollutant loads from urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The MRP requires that trash be reduced. Annual reports are submitted that evaluate the City’s efforts in meeting the NPDES performance standards (Berkeley 2011). e. Solid Waste
The City of Berkeley is one of the few cities in Northern California to operate its own refuse, dual stream recycling and green/food waste curbside collection system as well as material recovery/drop-off and buyback facilities. The City provides curbside recycling, green/food waste, and refuse collection services. The City’s Solid Waste Management Division is a part of Public Works and contracts through private entities. Some of the programs offered by the City’s Solid Waste Division includes recycling collection programs for businesses as well as residential and commercial refuse and organic waste collection. Solid waste, recyclable, and compostable materials collected by the City and its contracted companies are transported from the Berkeley Transfer Station, located at 1201 Second Street, for sorting or disposal at off-site facilities. The Berkeley Transfer Station currently has a maximum permitted throughout of 560 tons per day (CalRecycle 2019a). The public can also dispose of trash and recycle items such as electronics, mattresses, metals, carpet padding, construction materials, and compatible waste at the Transfer Station. City employs Urban Ore Inc., a local reuse company, to salvage reusable items discarded by Transfer Station customers.

Several private refuse and recycling companies do business in Berkeley. Four private refuse companies have non-exclusive franchises that allow them to collect dry rubbish from Berkeley businesses. These companies pay a franchise fee to the City and report their activities quarterly.

Many other Berkeley businesses also have arrangements with private recycling companies that provide customized service.

One permitted landfill in Alameda County has the capacity to accommodate solid waste generated in Berkeley: the Altamont Landfill. The maximum permitted daily throughput at the Altamont Landfill is 11,150 cubic yards, and the maximum permitted capacity is 124.4 million cubic yards. The remaining capacity for solid waste at this landfill is approximately 65.4 million cubic yards (CalRecycle, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), 2020a). The City of Berkeley has achieved a solid waste diversion rate of 69 percent of its solid waste from landfills through recycling and/or composting efforts (City of Berkeley 2021).
f. Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
Telecommunications services in Berkeley are provided by private companies, including AT&T, Comcast Cable, and Sonic which provides internet, phone, and television.

East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) supplies electricity to Berkeley using transmission infrastructure operated and maintained by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). PG&E also provides natural gas to the City. Natural gas and electricity are also addressed in Section 4.5, Energy. EBCE provides energy that is 100 percent carbon free.

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

4.16-6

4.16.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Water Supply
This regulatory setting discussion is specific to the assessment of water supply availability and reliability. Regulations and policies pertaining to water quality and potable drinking water standards are also discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since, is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States and forms the basis for several State and local laws throughout the country. The CWA established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The CWA gave the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) the authority to implement federal pollution control programs, such as setting water quality standards for contaminants in surface water, establishing wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry contaminants in surface water, establishing wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry categories, and imposing requirements for controlling nonpoint-source pollution. At the federal level, the CWA is administered by the USEPA and USACE. At the State and regional levels in California, the act is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).

Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates public water systems that supply drinking water (42 USC Section 300(f) et seq.; 40 CFR Section 141 et seq). The principle objective of the federal SDWA is to ensure that water from the tap is potable (safe and satisfactory for drinking, cooking, and hygiene). The main components of the federal SDWA are to:
 Ensure that water from the tap is potable
 Prevent contamination of groundwater aquifers that are the main source of drinking water for a community
 Regulate the discharge of wastes into underground injection wells pursuant to the Underground Injection Control program (see 40 CFR Section 144)
 Regulate distribution systems
State Regulations
Assembly Bill 1826
In October 2014 Governor Brown signed AB 1826, requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units (although multifamily dwellings are not required to have a food waste diversion program). Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-7
is mixed in with food waste. This law phases in the mandatory recycling of commercial organics over time, while also offering an exemption process for rural counties. In particular, the minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses decreases over time, which means an increasingly greater proportion of the commercial sector will be required to comply (CalRecycle, 2017b).

Senate Bil
l 610
Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) amended the California Water Code to require detailed analysis of water supply availability for certain types of development projects. The primary purpose of SB 610 is to improve the linkage between water and land use planning by encouraging greater communication between water providers and local planning agencies and ensuring that land use decisions for certain large development projects are fully informed as to whether sufficient water supplies are available to meet project demands. SB 610 requires the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for certain large development projects unless there is an urban water management plan ("UWMP") that accounts for the demand associated with the project. In t he case of Berkeley, the
EBMUD UWMP is used to project water demand with the proposed project.

California Safe Drinking Water Act
The California SDWA (Health & Safety Code Section 116270 et seq.; 22 Cal. Code Regs. Section 64400 et seq.) regulates drinking water more rigorously than the federal law. Like the federal SDWA, California requires that primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) be established for pollutants in drinking water; however, some California MCLs are more protective of health. The act also requires the SWRCB to issue domestic water supply permits to public water systems.

The SWRCB enforces the federal and State SDWAs and regulates more than 7,500 public water systems. (Implementation of the federal SDWA is delegated to California). The SWRCB’s Division of Drinking Water oversees the State’s comprehensive Drinking Water Program (DWP). The DWP is authorized to issue public water system permits.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In September 2014, the governor signed legislation requiring that California’s critical groundwater resources be sustainably managed by local agencies. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) gives local agencies the power to sustainably manage groundwater and requires groundwater sustainability plans to be developed for medium- and high-priority groundwater basins, as defined by the Department of Water Resources (DWR).

EBMUD’s service area overlies a significant portion of the East Bay Plan Subbasin. The East Bay Plan Subbasin is a medium priority basin and is therefore required to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to the requirements of SGMA. SGMA requires public notifications and hearings, as well active stakeholder communication and engagement in groundwater sustainability plans (East Bay Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management, 2018).

California Plumbing Code
The California Plumbing Code is codified in Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 5. The Plumbing Code contains regulations including, but not limited to, plumbing materials, fixtures, water heaters, water supply and distribution, ventilation, and drainage. More specifically, Part 5, Chapter 4, contains provisions requiring the installation of low flow fixtures and toilets. Existing development

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

4.16-8
will also be required to reduce its wastewater generation by retrofitting existing structures with water efficient fixtures (SB 407 [2009] Civil Code Sections 1101.1 et seq.).

The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7)
Califo
rnia adopted SB X7-7, or the Water Conservation Act of 2009, in November 2009. The legislation requires urban water retailers to set urban water use targets to achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita urban water use by December 31, 2020. Additionally, the law requires agricultural water suppliers to prepare, adopt, and regularly update agricultural water management plans. Agricultural and urban water providers are ineligible for certain State grants and loans if they do not adhere to water conservation requirements outlined in the law.

Regio
nal Water Management Plan Report
Adopted by the State legislature in 2002, the Regional Water Management Planning Act, or SB 1672, authorizes preparation of integrated regional water management plans. Such plans are developed by regional water management groups, defined as three or more local public agencies, at least two of which have statutory authority over water supply. Integrated regional water management plans address qualified programs and projects relating to water supply, water quality, flood protection, or other water-related topics undertaken by the participating public agencies. Qualified projects, as detailed in the legislation, include but are not limited to groundwater, urban, and agricultural water management planning efforts, levee or flood control infrastructure maintenance or construction, water recycling projects, and water conservation programs.

Local Regulations
City of Berkeley General Plan
The General Plan’s Environmental Management Element includes the following goals and policies applicable to water:
 EM-23 Water Quality in Creeks and San Francisco Bay. Take action to improve water quality in creeks and San Francisco Bay.
 EM-25 Groundwater. Protect local groundwater by promoting enforcement of state water quality laws that ensure nondegradation and beneficial use of groundwater.  EM-26 Water Conservation. Promote water conservation through City programs and requirements.
 S-7 Emergency Water Supply. Protect life and property in the event of an earthquake by evaluating alternate drinking water and firefighting water supply in the event of failure of the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) water supply. b. Wastewater
Federal
Federal Clean Water Act
The Federal Clean Water Act is described in Section 4.16.2, Water Supply.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-9
State and Regional
Standards for wastewater treatment plant effluent are established using State and federal water quality regulations. After treatment, wastewater effluent is either disposed of or reused as recycled water. The RWQCBs set the specific requirements for community and individual wastewater treatment and disposal and reuse facilities through the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements, required for wastewater treatment facilities under the California Water Code Section 13260.

The California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Sections 60301 through 60355 are used to regulate recycled wastewater and are administered by the RWQCBs. Title 22 contains effluent requirements for four levels of wastewater treatment, from un-disinfected secondary recycled water to disinfected tertiary recycled water. Higher levels of treatment have higher effluent standards, allowing for a greater number of uses under Title 22, including irrigation of freeway landscaping, pasture for milk animals, parks and playgrounds, and vineyards and orchards for disinfected tertiary recycled water.

Local
City of Berkeley General Plan
The City of Berkeley’s General Plan has the following policies as it relates to wastewater:
 EM-24 Sewers and Storm Sewers. Protect and improve water quality by improving the citywide sewer system.

City of Berkeley Municipal Code
Section 17.24.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) is the City’s Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance and includes standards for maintenance of private sewer laterals. Property owners must verify that their private sewer lateral meets City standards before selling their building, performing major renovations, or if otherwise required by the City.

Section 17.06.020 of t he Berkeley Municipal Code includes construction requirements for sanitary sewers and storm drains. All or any devices, inventions or piping systems which convey directly or indirectly stormwater, surface water, roof runoff, intercepted groundwater or subsurface drainage into sanitary sewers, are prohibited. They are only permitted if a special temporary permit has been obtained from the Director of Public Works. Permits will not be automatically issued and may be issued only when, in the opinion of the Director of Public Works, the denial of a permit would result in extreme hardship, in hazard to property, or in similar conditions.

The BMC also regulates allowable discharges to the City’s sewer system and connection fees for the sewer collection system.
c. Stormwater
Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to stormwater management, drainage, flooding, and water quality are discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

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

4.16-10
d. Solid Waste
Federal
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
Title 40 of the CFR, Part 258 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D), contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the Federal landfill criteria.

State
California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (SB 1383) Signed into law in September 2016, SB 1383 establishes methane emissions reduction targets for California in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The targets are to reduce organic waste disposal 50 percent by 2020 and 75 percent by 2025. The law also grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. Enforcement of these targets starts January 1, 2022.

California Integrated Waste Management Act
AB 939 (PRC 41780) requires cities and counties to prepare integrated waste management plans and to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills beginning in calendar year 2000 and each year thereafter. AB 939 also requires cities and counties to prepare source reduction and recycling elements as part of the integrated waste management plans. These elements are designed to develop recycling services to achieve diversion goals, stimulate local recycling in manufacturing, and stimulate the purchase of recycled products.

MANDATORY COMMERCIAL ORGANICS RECYCLINGAB 1826 of 2014 (PRC Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014) requires businesses that generate a specified amount of organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste, and that jurisdictions implement a recycling program to divert organic waste from businesses subject to the law. The jurisdictions must report to CalRecycle on their progress in implementing an organic waste recycling program. As of January 1, 2017, businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of organic waste per week shall arrange for organic waste recycling services.

PRC Chapter 343 (Senate Bill 1016)
SB 1016 of 2007 (PRC Chapter 343, Statutes of 2007) requires that the 50 percent solid waste diversion requirement established by AB 939 be expressed in pounds per person per day. SB 1016 changed the CalRecycle review process for each municipality’s integrated waste management plan.

After an initial determination of diversion requirements in 2006 and establishing diversion rates for subsequent calendar years, the Board reviews a jurisdiction’s diversion rate compliance in accordance with a specified schedule. Since January 1, 2018, the Board is required to review a jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element and hazardous waste element once every two years.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-11

CALGREEN BUILDING CODE
In 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green buildin g standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 50 percent of non-haza
rdous construction and demolition debris must be recycled or salvaged. The Code requires the applicant to have a construction and waste demolition and diversion plan, for on-site sorting or construction debris, which is submitted to the City of Berkeley for approval.

Regional

COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In compliance with AB 939, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority adopted the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP) in 1997 and updated the plan in 2020.

The CoIWMP provides a plan for reaching the State-mandated goal of 50 percent waste diversion and the county-mandated goal of 75 percent waste diversion. It also mandates that reduction and disposal facilities in Alameda County that require Solid Waste Facility Permits must conform with the CoIWMP’s policies and siting criteria (Stop Waste 2018).

Local
Berkeley General Plan
The General Plan’s Environmental Management Element includes the following goals and policies applicable to solid waste:

Policy EM-7: Reduced Wastes. Continue to reduce solid and hazardous wastes.

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

Policy EM-9: Recycling and Waste Transfer Stations. Ensure convenient access for Berkeley citizens to transfer stations, recycling, composting, and collection of household hazardous waste products.

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

C

ITY OF BERKELEY GREEN BUILDING CHECKLIST
A Green Building Checklist to ensure compliance with the 2013 California Green Building Standard Code, also known as CALGreen, is listed on the City’s website for both residential and commercial projects. As of January 1, 2014, new construction, additions, and alterations are subject to CALGreen requirements. The checklist must be submitted with and incorporated into the plan sets, and any items that are marked on the checklists must then be referenced and detailed in the plans. e. Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
The regulatory setting regarding energy is more extensively discussed in Section 4. 5 Energy.

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

4.16-12

4.16.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, impacts related to water supplies, wastewater, solid waste, or storm water conveyance are considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would:

Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years; Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects’ projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Impact UTIL-1 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD REQUIRE UTILITY SERVICE AND

CONNECTIONS FOR WATER SUPPLY, WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE, AND STORMWATER CONVEYANCE, AS WELL AS TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICITY, AND NATURAL GAS. EXISTING UTILITY SYSTEMS FOR WATER,

WASTEWATER, STORMWATER, ELECTRIC POWER, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN BERKELEY HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROJECT. RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR

EXPANDED FACILITIES RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WOULD NOT OCCUR, AND ADEQUATE WASTEWATER CAPACITY EXISTS TO SERVE THE PROJECT’S PROJECTED DEMAND IN ADDITION TO THE PROVIDER’S EXISTING COMMITMENTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Water
Construction activities associated with development under the proposed HEU would require recycled water for dust suppression, concrete manufacturing, and such activities as washing wheels and equipment. Temporary construction recycled water would be trucked to active construction sites or produced from existing fire hydrants near the applicable site(s), with City approval. As such,

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-13
construction water demands would not require new connections or conveyance facilities, as existing or mobile facilities would be used.

New water supply connections and associated facilities would be required for future development accommodated under the proposed HEU to convey potable water supply. Such upgrades would occur within existing utility easements and would be located underground, primarily within existing roadways. Development under the proposed HEU would primarily be located on previously developed sites or infill sites within the city that are currently zoned for residential development.

New water service connections would be consistent with utility expansion in urbanized areas, such that minimal areas of new disturbance would occur. Although all parcels in Berkeley have access to public utility infrastructure, in some cases the infrastructure is older and in need of replacement or insufficient to meet the needs of a particular project.

Developers are responsible for funding infrastructure improvements that are required to serve future projects and have not been previously identified as part of a capital improvement program covered by the development impact fees. Consistent with applicable State law, the City’s development fees ensure that the developers pay the cost attributable to the increased demand for the affected public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to refurbish the existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service and achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the City’s General Plan (California Government Code Section 66001(g)).

Due to the existing built-up nature of the City, it is reasonably anticipated that future improvements for water supply and fire flow requirements would not disturb previously undisturbed areas and would be situated within existing utility rights-of-way, such as but not limited to within public roadways.

The availability and reliability of water supply for the proposed project is addressed below, under Impact UTIL-2. Potential impacts related to relocation or construction of water supply facilities would be less than significant.

Wastewater
Wastewater Treatment
EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) provides wastewater collection and treatment to Berkeley, currently treating an average daily flow of approximately 63 mgd. With a secondary treatment capacity of 168 mgd. Primary treatment can be provided for up to 320 mgd.

The average dry weather flow from 2010 to 2019 was approximately 54 mgd (EBMUD 2021).

Table 4.16-1 shows the estimated wastewater generation for development under the proposed HEU. As shown, development under the proposed HEU is estimated to generate 765,688 gallons of wastewater per day. This would also be within the remaining capacity of the MWWTP. Therefore, the plant’s existing wastewater treatment capacity would be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated residential development under the proposed HEU. Development facilitated by the proposed project would not result in the need to expand the capacity of the MWWTP or exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco RWQCB.

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

4.16-14
Table 4.16-1 Estimated Wastewater Generation for the Proposed HEU Potential Buildout
Development/ Land Use1
Wastewater
Generation Factor1
Projected Number of
Housing Units
Projected Wastewater
Generation
Single-family residential 56 gpd/unit 113 units2 6,328 gpd Multifamily residential 40 gpd/unit 18,984 759,360 gpd
Total 765,688 gpd
1 Assumes wastewater generation is 80% of water use, see Table 4.16-4 for water use factors gpd = gallons per day
Wastewater Conveyance
Future development under the proposed HEU will re quire new connections for wastewater conveyance and sufficient capacity for wastewater treatment. As described in Section 4.7.1(b) above, wastewater conve
yance in Berkeley is provided by 254 miles of City-owned sanitary sewers, 7,200 manholes and other sewer structures, seven sewage pump stations, and approximately 31,600 service laterals. The City is responsible for maintenance and repair of the service laterals (located within the public right-of-way) from the property line cleanout to the connection to the City’s sewer main. New development in Berkeley would generate wastewater to be conveyed by privately owned upper laterals, City-owned lower laterals and sewer mains, and EBMUD’s interceptor lines. EBMUD projects that 61 mgd of wastewater will be collected and treated in the EBMUD Special District No.1 by 2040. As shown in Table 4.16-1, development under the proposed HEU would generate an estimated 765,688 gallons of wastewater per day, which would be approximately 1.3 percent of the wastewater collected and treated in in the district by 2040.

During wet-weather conditions, additional flow could potentially exceed pipeline capacities and create overflow. New development would be required to comply with the City’s Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance, by eliminating wet-weather infiltration and inflow to private sewer laterals, which would regulate wet-weather contribution from the proposed project. However, the construction of new or expanded sewer mains may be necessary to accommodate additional wastewater flow. The precise sizing of new wastewater conveyance pipes would be determined at the time of installation and would be subject to the approval of the City to ensure that the system would be adequate. Construction of wastewater conveyance pipes would occur within developed areas, such as street corridors that already contain underground infrastructure for utilities, or on other streets adjacent or near to the project sites. Most improvements would be within developed areas and connections would be within existing right-of-way. The impacts of individual new sewer main construction projects would be less than significant due to their temporary nature, adherence to existing requirements, and the already developed nature of wastewater conveyance corridors.

General impacts associated with construction of buildout and improvements associated with the proposed rezoning are discussed throughout this EIR.

The City of Berkeley also has regulations for reasonably foreseeable housing development. It must occur in compliance with the requirements of BMC Title 17 which establishes City standards related to wastewater discharge, peak flow, and sewer capacity. Every person, firm, corporation or entity desiring to construct a new connection to sewer services to the City’s sanitary sewer system shall pay a connection fee in the amount as established by City Council resolution. The connection fee shall be determined by assistant City engineer based upon the volume of water discharging from such premises from any source flows into sanitary sewers computed on an equivalent basis for a single family residential unit (Berkeley 1994). To the extent that sewer pipeline upgrades may be

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-15
necessary as reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project occurs, all costs of operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement of the City’s sanitary sewers shall be paid by the users of the City’s sanitary sewers. All sanitary sewer construction in the City must follow the following provisions:
 A permit for each connection shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works. At the time of the issuance of such permit, the permittee shall agree in writing to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees from any and all claims or demands of whatsoever nature which arise or may arise from the sanitary sewer or storm drain construction covered by such permit.
 Sanitary sewer construction fees shall be as set forth in the public works master fee schedule, as adopted by resolution of the City Council.
 For any work performed, wholly or in part, without first having secured the permit required by the provisions of this section, the person, firm or corporation having performed such work shall pay a permit fee which shall be five times the permit fee provided by this section, and five times the inspection charge for any month, or any fraction thereof, that the work has been in progress without a permit.
 All work shall be done in strict compliance with standard detailed plans and specifications of the City and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, and shall be inspected by a City inspector prior to backfilling the excavation.
 When a sanitary sewer is to be installed in the public right-of-way or other public easement, an amount as set forth in the public works master fee schedule, as adopted by resolution of the City Council, for each permit shall be deposited with the Public Works Department as a guaranty that all sanitary sewer work, including backfill, street paving and cleanup, will be done in a proper and workmanlike manner and in accordance with all City requirements and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. In lieu of such deposit for each permit, a surety company faithful performance bond in the amount set forth in the public works master fee schedule, as adopted by resolution of the City Council, may be filed with the Public Works Department. Such bond shall be conditioned that all sanitary sewer work, including backfill, street paving and cleanup shall be done in a proper and workmanlike manner and in accordance with all City requirements and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Any such bond may be conditioned as a continuing bond and not be limited to any particular location in the City. The form of such bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. In the event that such work is not done in a proper and workmanlike manner, or not done in accordance with the requirements of this section or any other ordinance or requirement of the City, or not done to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, the City may perform or cause to have performed the necessary corrective or cleanup work and deduct the cost thereof to be paid by said surety company on its bond.
 For a period of two years after completion of the sanitary sewer construction (final paving of the sanitary sewer or storm drain trench), the permittee shall be responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer construction and trench paving.

The City of Berkeley also employs a preventive maintenance approach to maintaining the sewer system designed to minimize the occurrences of repeat blockages and sanitary sewer overflows.

System-wide preventive maintenance is scheduled each month using the City’s computerized maintenance management system.

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

4.16-16
Additionally, future development associated with the proposed HEU would be required to adhere to Berkeley General Plan requirements related to wastewater infrastructure. Policy EM-24 in the Berkeley General Plan and Chapter 17.05 of the BMC requires that new development pay its fair share of improvements to the sewer system that would be necessary to accommodate increased flows. This policy and BMC requirements would ensure that new developments are not approved until it can be demonstrated that adequate wastewater collection capacity exists, or until a financial commitment to create such capacity has been secured. Therefore, with implementation of General Plan policy EM-24 and BMC Chapter 17.05, new development associated with the proposed rezoning would have adequate wastewater conveyance systems to serve future planned development on the project sites. Accordingly, impacts related to wastewater conveyance would be less than significant.

Therefore, the project would not require or result in
the relocation or construction of new or
expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater
Impacts regarding stormwater drainage facilities are discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. As discussed in that section, with compliance with existing regulations, development under the proposed HEU would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage, facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Electricity and Natural Gas
The project would require connections to existing electrical transmission and distribution systems to serve development facilitated by the project. This service would be provided in accordance with the rules and regulations of EBCE, and PG&E on file with and approved by CPUC. Based on the availability of existing electrical infrastructure, it is not anticipated that the construction of new electrical transmission and distribution lines would be required, and all sites would be able to connect to existing infrastructure. Therefore, there would be adequate electrical facilities to serve development facilitated by the project and impacts related to electricity would be less than significant.

Development facilitated by the project would connect to existing natural gas infrastructure to meet the needs of site residents and tenants. Based on the availability of existing natural gas infrastructure, construction of new natural gas pipelines would not be required, and all sites would be able to connect to existing infrastructure. Therefore, there would be adequate natural gas facilities to serve the development facilitated by the project and impacts related to natural gas would be less than significant.

Telecommunications
Project implementation would require connections to existing adjacent utility infrastructure to meet the needs of site residents and tenants. Based on the availability of existing telecommunications infrastructure, construction of new telephone and cable lines would not be required, and all sites would be able to connect to existing infrastructure. Development facilitated by the project would be required to adhere to applicable laws and regulations related to the connection to existing telecommunication infrastructure. Therefore, there would be adequate telecommunications facilities to serve the development facilitated by the project and impacts related to telecommunications would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-17
Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 2: Would t he project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Impact UTIL-2 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN WATER DEMAND. HOWEVER, THIS INCREASE IN DEMAND CAN BE SERVED BY THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) WITH DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES REQUIRED BY EBMUD. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The City of Berkeley is served by existing EBMUD, potable water facilities. EBMUD performs a comprehensive demand projection study every ten years; the most recent update, the 2050 Demand Study, was completed in 2020. The 2050 Demand Study is an update of EBMUD’s water demand forecasts using a land use based approach that incorporates forecasts of dwelling units and employment from land use agencies into a newly developed water demand model. It is based on projections incorporated from the U.S Census Bureau and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). EBMUD has found that while the number of accounts for their service has increased steadily since 1970, the average daily water demand has not increased; outside of droughts, demand remains relatively stable.

Table 4.16-2 indi cates the average annual demand of water thro ugh 2050 based on land use. The
projections indicate that the planning level of demand of MGD, which is the adjusted demand for applying water conservation and cumulative recycled water savings achieved since the 1994 Water Conservation Master Plan was implemented, would be less than the forecasted water demand.

Table 4.16-2 Average Annual Demand Projections by Customer Use Category (MGD) Land Use 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Single-Family Residential 115 117 119 121 125 126 129
Multi-Fami
ly
Residential 40 44 48 52 59 63 67
Institutional 17 18 20 21 22 24 26
Industrial 33 35 35 36 36 37 37
Commercial 16 18 19 21 22 24 25
Irrigation 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Forecasted Water Demand 234 245 254 264 277 287 297
Water Conservation -48 -53 -58 -61 -63 -65 -66
Non-Potable Water -5 -6 -6 -9 -13 -13 -13
Planning Level of Demand 181 186 190 194 201 209 218
N/A = not available
Source: EBMUD 2020a
1 Flowrate factors are based on reference material provided by EBMUD: 50 gpd/person for high-rise apartments; 0.216 gpd/sf for commercial retail space
2 Total net (or new) commercial buildout of 65,000 sf assumes ground floor commercial space that is a mix of retail or small -scale office space. Because it is not possible to predict the exact mix of retail versus office space, retail space water demand was assum ed in order to be conservative with respect to water demand. gpd = gallons per day

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

4.16-18
EBMUD also evaluated several different scenarios to assess its need for water under potential drought conditions. These different scenarios capture the uncertainty in long-term planning.

Uncertainty is inherent in any future-oriented planning effort and is a driving factor in long-term water resources planning. Water supplies are constantly subject to uncertainties that directly affect the amount and timing availability of the sources of water. In order to address these inherent uncertainties, and as required by Section 10632 of the California Water Code, EBMUD maintains a current Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), which is published as part of the UWMP, and subject to 5-year updates with the UWMP. The WSCP provides the framework to address water shortages, and identifies actions to manage supply and demand before and during a water shortage to ensure a reliable water supply (EBMUD 2020b).

In order to identify appropriate water shortage res ponse actions for the purposes of the WSCP, EBMU
D defines a Base Condition, as well as a High Water Demand Condition and Extreme Drought Condition, which reflect actual demand rates from a recent drought planning sequence and are used for comparison purposes (EBMUD 2020b). The annual water demand under different scenarios for the EBMUD service area is laid out in Table 4.16-3, which also reflects water supplies that EBMUD received under its water service contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to receive Central Valley Project (CVP) water through the Freeport Regional Water Project; this is a supply option that EBMUD uses during dry year conditions, as needed. A Normal Water Year is a year that EBMUD does not need to implement any Drought Management Program (DMP) measures.

A Single Dry Water Year is determined to be a year that EBMUD would implement DMP elements, which includes obtaining Central Valley Project (CVP) water deliveries and setting voluntary rationing goal between 0 to 10 percent. Year 2 would involve the second consecutive dry year is determined as a year that EBMUD would implement DMP elements, which includes continuing to obtain CVP water deliveries and setting a mandatory rationing between 10 – 15 percent. Year 3 includes the third consecutive dry year is determined as a year that EBMUD would implement DMP elements which includes obtaining CVP water deliveries and implementing mandatory rationing of 15 percent.

Based on this table EBMUD anticipates having an adequate water supply to meet demand in its service area, except during the third year of a multi-year drought starting around 2025 or later.

During multi-year drought, EBMUD may require substantial reductions in water use by customers and as discussed below, may also need to acquire supplemental supplies to meet demand. New development under the proposed HEU would be subject to the same drought restrictions that apply to all EBMUD customers.

Table 4.16-3 Preliminary EBMUD Baseline Supply and Demand Analysis 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal Year
Mokelumne System
(MGD)
> 181 >186 >190 >194 > 201 >209 >218
EBMUD Planning Level of
Demand (MGD)
181 186 190 194 201 209 218
Need For Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Single Dry Year or First Year of Multi-Year Drought
Mokelumne System 121 126 129 132 138 144 151
CVP Su
pplies2 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Total Supplies (MGD) 181 186 189 192 198 204 211

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-19
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Voluntary Rationing (%) 0 0 1% 1% 2% 2% 3%
Need for Water (TAF) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year of Multi-Year Drought
Mokelumne System 82 86 89 92 98 104 111
CVP Su
pplies2 74 74 74 74 74 74 74
Supply Totals 156 161 164 167 172 178 185
Mandatory Rationing (%) 13% 13% 13% 14% 14% 14% 15%
Need for Water (TAF) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year of Multi-Year Drought
Mokelumne System
(MGD)
141 145 146 145 132 118 105
C
VP Supplies2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Supply Totals 153 157 158 157 144 130 117
Mandatory Rationing4 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Need For Water (TAF) 5 0 0 0 0 28 52 75
MGD = million gallons per day, TAF = thousand acre-feet 1 Planning Level Demand accounts for projected savings from water recycling and conservation programs as discussed in the 2020 UWMP, Chapters 3. Customer demand values are based on the Water Supply Availability and Deficiency received by EBMUD, 2020 2 Projected available CVP supplies are taken according to the Drought Management Program Guidelines discussed in Chapter 3. 3 Rationing reduction goals are determined according to projected system storage levels in the Drought Management Program Guidelines discussed in the 2020 UWMP, Chapter 3.
5 Need for Water includes unmet customer demand as well as shortages on the Lower Mokelumne River.

Source: EBMUD 2020a
Table 4.16-3 shows that sufficient water supplies are projected to be available to meet existing and projected demands during normal water year (non-drought) conditions, as well as during a single dry year, and during the first two years of a multi-year drought condition. During the third year of a multi-year drought condition, it is projected that water supply shortages would occur starting in year 2040, in the amount of 28,000 AFY, increasing to 52,000 AFY in 2045, and 75,000 AFY in 2050.

As discussed above this table, the WSCP which EBMUD maintains with its UWMP identifies actions to manage supply and demand before and during a water shortage, including but not limited to the use of CVP water received from USBR through the Freeport Regional Water Project. The current (2020) WSCP described that drought conditions occurred during 2014-2016, which resulted in EBMUD relying on the Freeport Regional Water Project, with the following findings:
 Take delivery of the supply as early as possible in the drought sequence to maximize delivery of the lower-cost drought supply,
 Maximize production at the West of Hills water treatment plants, and  Manage the terminal reservoirs to maximize available space for storage (EBMUD 2020a).

These lessons from the 2014-2016 drought were incorporated into EBMUD’s DMP and operational decision-making processes moving forward. Specifically, EBMUD’s CVP allocation was reduced by 50 percent in the contract year 2014 and by 75 percent in contract year 2015, as the CVP was faced with increasing demands and reduced supplies as the drought continued; EBMUD made up for the reduced allocation by purchasing transfer water in 2015 and by securing options to purchase

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

4.16-20
transfer water for 2016 (EBMUD 2020a). The transfer water was more expensive than the CVP water, and should comparable future drought scenarios occur, EBMUD will maximize delivery of lower-cost drought supply at the start of the drought conditions.

The EIR buildout assumes 19,098 housing units. Based on assumptions in the VMT analysis, this includes an estimated 18,985 multifamily housing units and 113 single family housing units. The additional water use for these units is indicated in Table 4.16-4. Overall, the project could increase demand in the City by an estimated 0.96 MGD, or approximately an approximately 0.5 percent increase from the 2030 EBMUD service area demand estimate of 190 MGD as shown on Table 4.16-3.

Table 4.16-4 Estimated Water Use for the Proposed HEU
Potential Buildout
Development/Land Use1
Water Generation
Factor
Projected Number of
Housing Units
Projected Water
Demand in 2031
(gpd)
Projected Water
Demand in 2031
(MGD)
Single-family residential 70 gpd/unit 113 units2 7,910 gpd 0.008 MGD Multifamily residential 50 gpd/unit 18,985 949,250 gpd 0.95 MGD Total 957,160 gp d 0.96 MG D
1 Based on water use factors provided by EBMUD, 70 gpd/unit for a typical home and 50 gpd/unit for a high- rise apartment. 2 Assumed 113 single-family residences and the rest multi-family consistent with the assumptions in the VMT analysis (Kitteson & Associates 2022)
gpd =gallons per day. MGD = million gallons per day
Regardless of implementation of the proposed Housing Element, current water supplies could potentially be insufficient to meet demand from the project. According to the EBMUD UWMP, the EBMUD service area has a water reduction goal of 153 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) by 2020, and in 2020 the MPWD reported its GPCD was 121 GPCD which met the target. Based on the increase of approximately 0.5 percent from the projected 2030 water demand in EMBUD’s UWMP, estimated GPCD with implementation of the project would be 127 GPCD which would still be well below the targeted 153 GPCD.

Further, compliance with the water conservation regulations and policies would help to maintain sufficient supplies. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) requires a 20 percent reduction in residential indoor water use that would lower potential water demand. New development would be subject to the CCR concerning water-efficient landscapes (Division 2, Title 23, CCR, Chapter 2.7, Sections 490 through 495). Implementation of the WELO would encourage water conservation for new development and in landscaped areas. The WELO, which reinforces landscape irrigation and water conservation best practices currently required by EBMUD’s Section 31 Regulations, also would encourage the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and low-flow irrigation systems. Furthermore, new development would be subject to other green building and water conservation requirements described in the Water Supply Regulatory Setting. In that event that EBMUD customers would be subject to a Demand Management Plan and other water conservation requirements that will address any shortage in supply.

In summary, compliance with regulatory requirements, proactive management of available supplies, and drought response and conservation efforts conducted by EBMUD collectively support the continued reliability of water supplies currently used in the City of Berkeley. As discussed above with respect to EBMUD’s response to the 2014-2016 drought conditions, EBMUD’s DMP and

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-21
operational decision-making processes reflect multi-faceted response to drought conditions, when they occur, and include the purchase of transfer water when available, for use as drought supply when needed. Although Table 4.16-3 projects water supply shortages during the third year of multi- year drought conditions, EBMUD’s existing operational protocols provide for responses to such conditions, which would be initiated during the first and section years of multi-year drought conditions. Such responses are not reflected in the projections shown, because the specific actions taken will depend upon dynamic conditions during the first two years of the multi-year drought. As noted, sufficient supplies are anticipated to be available during normal water year conditions and single-drought-year conditions, as well as during the first two years of multi-drought-year conditions. Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed HEU, and appropriate systems are in place to address potential drought-related water supply shortages, such that potential impacts would be less than significant.

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

Threshold 4: Woul d the generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold 5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact UTIL-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE SOLID WASTE IN EXCESS OF STATE OR LOCAL STANDARDS, OR IN EXCESS OF THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE. THE

PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE ATTAINMENT OF SOLID WASTE REDUCTION GOALS AND WOULD COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The EIR buildout assumption includes 19,098 additional units through 2031. CalRecycle estimates that multi-family residential uses generate an average of four pounds of solid waste per unit per day (CalRecycle 2019b). As shown in Table 4.16-5, prior to implementation of State-mandated diversion requirements, development associated with the proposed HEU would generate an estimated 76,338 net pounds per day of solid waste, which equates to 38 tons or 76 cubic yards per day. In accordance with California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, cities and counties are required to divert 50 percent of all solid wastes from landfills. The City of Berkeley has achieved a diversion rate of 69 percent, which substantially exceeds this State requirement. Assuming that this diversion rate continues to apply to new development on the project sites, implementation of the project would generate an additional 2.4 tons per day of solid waste for disposal at landfills.

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

4.16-22
Table 4.16-5 Estimated Solid Waste Generation for the Proposed HEU Potential Buildout
Development/ Land Use Quantity Units
Generation
Rate
Solid Waste
(pounds per day)
Solid Waste
(tons per day)
Solid Waste
(cubic yards
per day)2
Residential 19,098 dwelling
units
4 pounds/
unit/day
76,392 38.2 76.3
Total Assuming 69% Diversion Rate 23,682 11.8 23.7
1 This analysis makes the conservative assumption that all commercial development consists of retail commercial space, which generates more solid waste per square foot than typical generation rates for commercial offices. 2 Based on the conversion factor described under Table 4.10-1, County-Service Landfill Capacity for “landfill density” Municipal Solid Waste, of approximately 750 to 1,250 pounds per cubic yard, or an average of 1,000 pounds per cubic yard.

Source: CalRecycle 2020b
As discussed in the Solid Waste Setting, the Altamont Landfill is an active landfill that can accommodate solid waste from Berkeley. This landfill has a combined remaining capacity of approximately 65.4 million cubic yards. With development facilitated by the proposed rezoning, it is estimated that the project sites would generate an additional 23.7cubic yards per day of solid waste for disposal at landfills. This amount would equate to approximately 8,651 cubic yards per year. This represents 0.013 percent of the current total remaining landfill capacity.

Continued compliance with applicable regulations and Berkeley General Plan policies listed in the Solid Waste Regulatory Setting would ensure that development facilitated by the project complies with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would lead to increased recycling and waste diversion. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with these policies, including paying a fair share for solid waste services and achieving greater diversion rates than required by AB 939. AB 939 requires the City to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills. Local infrastructure would have the capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the project. Development facilitated by the project would also be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations. Therefore, anticipated rates of solid waste disposal from the proposed HEU would have a less than significant impact related to solid waste disposal facilities.

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].).

Water
The analysis provided under Impact UTL-2 is cumulative in nature and considers water demand associated with development within EBMUD’s service area. EBMUD’s average of annual demand by customer use for different land uses contained in Table 4.16-2 indicate that some water use conservation restrictions may be implemented under varying conditions. The UMWP also includes guidelines that future development would be subject to EBMUD’s regulations aimed at encouraging

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-23
efficient water use, such as Sections 29 and 31 of EBMUD’s Regulations Governing Water Service.

Section 29, “Prohibiting Wasteful Use of Water,” promotes efficient water use by EBMUD customers and includes additional restrictions on wasteful uses of potable water. Section 31, “Water Efficiency Requirements,” identifies the types of water efficiency requirements (i.e., maximum flow rates for flow control devices) for water service. Therefore, the cumulative impact related to water supply would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not considerably contribute to a significant impact.

Wastewater
Cumulative development in Berkeley will continue to increase demands on the existing wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities. The MWWTP current capacity is sufficient to serve the anticipated growth in Berkeley. New wastewater conveyance isn’t necessary to serve cumulative development at this time. However, individual improvements to the sewer system would occur in existing utility corridors in already developed areas. Therefore, the cumulative impact related to wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant, and the development facilitated by proposed project would not considerably contribute to significant cumulative impact.

Stormwater
Cumulative Impacts regarding stormwater drainage facilities are discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Solid Waste
Cumulative development in Alameda County will continue to increase solid waste generation for disposal at landfills that serve the County. State-mandated solid waste diversion rates (for recycling) would continue to minimize the quantity of waste directed to area landfills, and compliance applicable regulations and with General Plan goals, policies, and actions would maintain or improve upon existing solid waste diversion rates. It is assumed the City of Berkeley will continue to divert at least 65 percent of solid waste from landfills due to its recycling and green waste programs. As discussed in Impact UTL-3, development facilitated by the proposed project would generate a limited amount of solid waste, representing 0.0011 percent of the remaining capacity of existing landfills serving Alameda County. This incremental increase in solid waste would not considerably contribute to a significant impact related to solid waste disposal.

Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas includes the entire service territories of the providers for each of these utilities.

Telecommunications
Telecommunication services in Berkeley are provided by private companies, including AT&T, Comcast Cable, and Sonic which provides internet, phone, and are available throughout the City.

Connections for new telecommunications services are implemented on an as needed basis, and the service provider used is generally at the discretion of the customer. Cumulative projects will establish telecommunications service connections in the same manner as residential developments under the proposed Project. There are no anticipated limitations to the availability of telecommunications service. Potential cumulative impacts associated with telecommunications would be less than significant.

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

4.16-24
Electricity and Natural Gas
Berkeley residents rely on East Ba y Community Energy (EBCE) and Pacific as t he electricity provider
while PG&E is also the natural gas provider for the City. They are responsible for transmitting electricity and natural gas to all land uses within its service area, including the Draft Housing Opportunity Sites. Development considered part of the cumulative analysis includes buildout of local General Plans.

PG&E is subject to the requirements set forth and/or enforced by the CPUC. The need for electric and natural gas infrastructure would be addressed on a case-by-case basis for each cumulative project, and would be subject to CPUC requirements, similar to those applicable to the project.

Therefore, cumulative impacts related to electric power and natural gas transmission facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact regarding electricity and natural gas.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-1

4.17 Wildfire
This section evaluates potential wildfire impacts that could arise from implementation of the proposed HEU. The wildfire analysis consists of a summary of the existing conditions in Berkeley, the regulatory framework, a discussion of the potential wildfire impacts from development during the planning period of the HEU, and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid the potential impacts.

4.17.1 Setting
Wildfire Fundamentals
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire in an area of extensive combustible fuel, including vegetation and structures. Wildfires differ from other fires in that they take place outdoors in areas of grassland, woodlands, brushland, scrubland, peatland, and other wooded areas that act as a source of fuel or combustible material. In addition, buildings may become involved if a wildfire spreads to adjacent communities. The primary factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to wildfire include slope and topography, vegetation type and condition, and weather and atmospheric conditions.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has recognized that although high-density structure-to-structure loss can occur, structures in areas with low- to intermediate-density housing were most likely to burn, potentially due to intermingling with wildland vegetation or difficulty of firefighter access. In general, increasing density decreases risk of wildfire. The risk of loss of human life, property, natural resources, or economic assets from wildfire is highest at the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), which are areas of urban development located adjacent to or even within wildland areas. Additionally, with high winds and low humidity, a wildfire beginning in the WUI area can quickly spread outside of the WUI, as was seen in historical fires in Berkeley. Regions of dense, dry vegetation, particularly in canyon areas and hillsides, pose the most significant potential for wildfire risks.

Approximately one-third of houses in California are currently within a WUI area (OPR 2020). It is important to note that there are varying definitions of what constitutes a WUI, and some local or regional agencies consider some areas to be WUI that are not defined as Wildland Interface or Intermix zones under the Wildland-Urban Interface Building Standards in Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR); these standards are discussed under Regulatory Setting below.

The indirect effects of wildland fires can be catastrophic. In addition to stripping the land of vegetation and destroying forest resources, large, intense fires can harm the soil, waterways, and the land itself. Soil exposed to extreme heat may lose its capacity to absorb moisture and support life.

Wildfire has three basic elements: how and where its ignition occurred; how and why it moves across a landscape from its point of origin; and the fire’s nature upon arrival at a location important to the City. In general, a fire’s nature is defined by eight characteristics:

Direction of the advance of the fire front
Speed of the advance of the fire front (rate of spread) Mechanism causing the advance
Duration at any one location
Structure-related consumption of fuels

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

4.17-2
Flame length
Intensity
Gaining control
A fire front’s direction of travel is primarily determined by the direction of prevailing winds, geographic aspect, and condition of the fuels in the advanced direction. The speed of a fire front’s advance results from conditions at the site of the currently burning material and of lands in the advance direction of the fire. As a fire advances, the overriding influences determining its speed are prevailing wind speed, terrain slope gradient, dominant fuel size classes, and fuel continuity.

Wildfires advance by two principal mechanisms, combustion resulting from radiant heating and remote ignition resulting from ember production. Fire stays at one location primarily due to the size and class of the material being consumed. Grass formations are dominated by low volumes of very “fine” fuels and, depending on the level of dryness, can be consumed, with the fire advancing, in a matter of minutes. On the other hand, tree-dominated formations have significantly greater volumes of available fuel and many larger-sized pieces. Fires can remain at these locations for days, often weeks, and sometimes months (on heavily wooded conifer sites).

Fires burn where fuels are available, which can include vegetation and structures. For example, fires in grasslands burn at one level set by the height of the grass, while fires in brushlands can burn surface fuels and typically consume the stems and leafy crowns to the full height of the plants. Fires in tree formations have a much more complex pattern of movement-based primarily on the continuity (or “connectedness”) of the fuels.

Flame lengths are generally determined by the volume of fuels burning, the amount of time to total consumption, and the height of the species in the composition. Grassland produces flame lengths typically ranging from one to three feet as they are composed of low volumes of fine materials that are consumed quickly. Flame lengths are at their maximum when the material is dry. Brush formations can produce flame lengths from 4 to 10 feet. Native oak-dominated hardwood formations can generate 20- to 40-foot flame lengths and stands of exotics, such as Eucalyptus globulus or E. cinerea, or dense conifer stands, over 100 feet. Flame length is important as it sets the distance over which radiant heating-related combustion can occur.

The temperature achieved in a wildfire is directly related to the amount of cellulosic material available for consumption. Grasslands have very low amounts and attain lower temperatures but woodland, characterized by large amounts of highly concentrated cellulosic material, can attain temperatures on the order of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Gaining control over a wildfire’s behavioral character is the objective of response efforts. Grassland fires, burning in low fuel volume, rapid consumption, and at a single level are the easiest to bring under control. On the other end, fires that are burning in high fuel volumes, full spectrum size classes, and entire stand structure involvement, can require days, weeks, even months, to bring under complete control.

Slope and Aspect
According to CAL FIRE, sloping land increases susceptibility to wildfire because fire typically burns faster up steep slopes, and they may hinder firefighting efforts (CAL FIRE 2007b). Following severe wildfires, sloping land is also more susceptible to landslide or flooding from increased runoff during substantial precipitation events. Aspect is the direction that a slope faces, and it determines how much radiated heat the slope will receive from the sun. Slopes facing south to southwest will

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-3
receive the most solar radiation and are warmer and drier than slopes facing a northerly to northeasterly direction, increasing the potential for wildfire ignition and spread (University of California 2018).

Vegetation
Vegetation is fuel to a wildfire, and it changes over time with seasonal growth and die-back. The relationship between vegetation and wildfire is complex, but generally some vegetation is naturally fire resistant, while other vegetation is extremely flammable. Some plant types in California landscapes are fire resistant, while others are fire-dependent for their seed germination cycles.

Wildfire behavior depends on the type of fuels present, such as ladder fuels, surface fuels, and aerial fuels. Surface fuels include grasses, logs, and stumps low to the ground. Ladder fuels, such as tall shrubs, young trees, and the lowest branches of mature trees, provide a path for fire to climb upward into the crowns of trees. Aerial fuels include upper limbs, foliage, and branches not in contact with the ground. Ample spacing in between tree crowns and trimming of lower branches close to the ground is effective at preventing fire from either igniting the crown of a tree or spreading from an ignited tree to adjacent trees; conversely, closely packed trees with low branches are especially susceptible to crown ignition and spread (CAL FIRE 2020a). Weather and climate conditions, including drought cycles, can lead to dry vegetation with low moisture content, increasing its flammability.

Weather and Atmospheric Conditions
Wind, temperature, and relative humidity are the most influential weather elements in fire behavior and susceptibility (CAL FIRE 2020a). Fire moves faster under hot, dry, and windy conditions. Wind may also blow embers ahead of a fire, causing its spread. Drought conditions lead to extended periods of excessively dry vegetation, increasing the fuel load and ignition potential.

According to data collected by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), most precipitation falls between November and May and very little falls between late spring and early fall with an average annual rainfall of 25inches (EBMUD 2020). May through September is the driest time of the year and coincides with what has traditionally been considered the fire season in California.

However, increasingly persistent drought and climatic changes in California have resulted in drier winters, and fires during the autumn, winter, and spring months are becoming more common.

Prevailing winds in Berkeley called Diablo Wind are generally hot, dry wind from the northeast. A catastrophic fire in Berkeley is most likely to occur under these Diablo Wind conditions. Historically, these winds were associated with the 1991 East Bay Hills fire and the 1923 Berkeley Fire, which burned from Wildcat Canyon to Shattuck Avenue in central Berkeley.

Citywide Conditions
Berkeley faces an ongoing threat from urban and wildland fire. Berkeley’s dense development pattern, characterized by older structures including high-rise buildings, multi-storied residential units, and various warehouse, manufacturing, and commercial properties, makes Berkeley susceptible to fire. Berkeley also faces a significant wildland fire danger from its hillsides where the wildland and residential areas interface.

The fire threat is most common during the dry months of May through October and can become extreme when the warm, dry Diablo winds blow out of the northeast. The Diablo winds can be strong and make fires challenging to control. In addition, these wildfires can move with breathtaking

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

4.17-4
speed, down from the ridge in 30 minutes, expanding to one square mile in one hour, and then consuming hundreds of residences in one day. There have been 14 wildland fires from 1923 – 1991.

This includes the Tunnel Fire in 1991 which destroyed more than 3,354 dwellings in Berkeley and Oakland and claimed 25 lives (Berkeley 2019).

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
In California, State and local agencies share responsibility for wildfire prevention and suppression and federal agencies take part as well. Federal agencies are responsible for federal lands in Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA). The State of California has determined that some non-federal lands in unincorporated areas with watershed value are of statewide interest and have classified those lands as State Responsibility Areas (SRA). CAL FIRE manages SRAs. All incorporated areas and unincorporated lands not in FRAs or SRAs are classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRA).

While nearly all of California is subject to some degree of wildfire hazard, there are specific features that make certain areas more hazardous. CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors (Public Resources Code 4201- 4204, California Government Code 51175-89). As described above, the primary factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to fire hazards include slope, vegetation type and condition, and atmospheric conditions. CAL FIRE maps fire hazards based on zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). There are three levels of severity: 1) moderate FHSZs; 2) high FHSZs; and 3) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). Only the VHFHSZs are mapped for LRAs. Each of the zones influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. However, none of the fire zones specifically prohibit development or construction. To reduce fire risk under State regulations, development within VHFHSZs must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to reduce property damage and loss of life in those areas.

CAL FIRE develops initial boundaries for VHFHSZs throughout California, but the final boundaries of a VHFHSZ are adopted by each jurisdiction. The VHFHSZ formally adopted by the City is larger than originally proposed by CAL FIRE, and includes City of Berkeley Fire Zones 2 and 3, as well as approximately 36 individual parcels located near or adjacent to the VHFHSZ. The Wildfire Urban Interface area in Berkeley is the same as the VHFHSZ
.

As shown in Figure 4.17-1, much of the Berkeley Hills in the eastern portion of Berkeley lies in a VHFHSZ. Berkeley is also within an LRA and the areas adjacent to the east of Berkeley are within an SRA. Figure 4.17-2, shows the 82 EIR sites inventory locations and the VHFHSZ. Most of the residential areas in this part of Berkeley are also zoned R-1, R-2, and R-2A, districts where density increases are also proposed in the HEU.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-5
Figure 4.17-1 Berkeley Fire Zones

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

4.17-6
Figure 4.17-2 Housing Inventory Sites and the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-7
Berkeley Fire Zones
Since the early 20th century, the City of Berkeley has established and adjusted fire zones in Berkeley.

While the zones were initially established to address urban fire issues, they have evolved to designate the City’s WUI fire hazard. Currently, the Berkeley Fire Department currently has divided the city into Fire Zones 1, 2, and 3, designated in order of ascending fire risk.

Fire Zone 3 is the Panoramic Hill area; Fire Zone 2 covers the remainder of the city’s eastern hills; Fire Zone 1, covers the rest of the City west of the hills. Fire Zones 2 and 3 currently include about 8,300 properties. These zones have the strictest fire prevention standards in the City for issues such as building materials for new structures. The City also enforces vegetation management measures in these areas.

4.17.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a state-level mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance and provides funding to communities developing their own mitigation plans through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program. There are two different levels of state disaster plans:
“Standard” and “Enhanced.” States that develop an approved Enhanced State Plan can increase the amount of funding available through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The Act also established new requirements for local mitigation plans. The City of Berkeley’s 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, adopted as an Appendix to the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan, meets requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan was developed in August 2000, following a historic wildfire season. Its intent is to establish plans for active response to severe wildfires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity. The plan addresses firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and accountability. b. State Laws, Regulations, and Policies
California Board of Forestry
The Board of Forestry maintains fire safe road regulations, as part of CCR Title 14. This includes requirements for road width, surface treatments, grade, radius, turnarounds, turnouts, structures, driveways, and gate entrances. These regulations are intended to ensure safe access for emergency wildland fire equipment and civilian evacuation.

California Fire and Building Codes (2019)
The California Fire Code is Chapter 9 of CCR Title 24. It establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structure, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. It is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing

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

4.17-8
procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety. The California Fire Code regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The California Fire Code and the California Building Code (CBC) use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to protect fire and life safety. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the California Fire Code employs a permit system based on hazard classification.

The provisions of this Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout California.

More specifically, the Fire Code is included in CCR Title 24. Title 24, part 9, Chapter 7 addresses fire- resistances-rated construction; CBC (Part 2), Chapter 7A addresses materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure; Fire Code Chapter 8 addresses fire related Interior finishes; Fire Code Chapter 9 addresses fire protection systems; and Fire Code Chapter 10 addresses fire related means of egress, including fire apparatus access road width requirements. Fire Code Section 4906 also contains existing regulations for vegetation and fuel management to maintain clearances around structures. These requirements establish minimum standards to protect buildings located in FHSZs within SRAs and WUI Fire Areas. This code includes provisions for ignition-resistant construction standards for new buildings.

Wildland-Urban Interface Building Standards
On September 20, 2007, the Building Standards Commission approved the Office of the State Fire Marshal’s emergency regulations amending the CCR Title 24, Part 2, known as the 2007 CBC. These codes include provisions for ignition-resistant construction standards in the WUI.

Interface zones are areas with dense housing adjacent to vegetation that can burn and meeting the following criteria:

Housing density class 2 (one house per 20 acres to one house per 5 acres), class 3 (more than one house per 5 acres to one house per acre), or class 4 (more than one house per acre) In Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Not dominated by wildland vegetation (i.e., lifeform not herbaceous, hardwood, conifer, or shrub)
Spatially contiguous groups of 30-meter cells1 that are 10 acres and larger Intermix zones are housing development interspersed in an area dominated by wildland vegetation and must meet the following criteria:

Not interface
Housing density class 2
Housing density class 3 or 4, dominated by wildland vegetation In Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Improved parcels only
Spatially contiguous groups of 30-meter cells 25 acres and larger

1 Note that “30-meter cells” refers to satellite mapping or Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, and indicates data is presented as 30-meter by 30-meter squares in the source maps used to determine zone types.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-9
Influence zones have wildfire-susceptible vegetation up to 1.5 miles from an interface zone or intermix zone (CAL FIRE 2019b). While the 2007 CBC creates WUI definitions for interface, intermix and influence zones in order to apply required construction standards, many local and regional entities use their own definitions of WUI areas for other purposes, ranging from simple resident awareness and public outreach to further municipal-level standards. Berkeley is most vulnerable to wind-driven fire incident originating in an area adjacent to Berkeley’s eastern border, in land owned by UC Berkeley, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the East Bay Regional Park District, within the City of Oakland or within Contra Costa County. The wildfire risk is worsened by the area’s mountainous topography, limited water supply, and minimal access and egress routes.

The California Fire Plan
The Strategic Fire Plan for California is the State’s road map for reducing the risk of wildfire. The most recent version of the plan was finalized in January 2019 and directs each CAL FIRE Unit to address and meet incremental requirements to achieve four specific goals by 2023, including improving core capabilities, enhancing internal operations, ensuring health and safety, and building an engaged workforce (CAL FIRE 2019). A core element of the plan is increasing staffing levels from

2.67 employees per position to 3.11 employees per position to ensure adequate staffing during times of increased mobilization.

California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) prepares the State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP). The SHMP identifies hazard risks and includes a vulnerability analysis and a hazard mitigation strategy. The SHMP is federally required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 for the State to receive Federal funding. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a state mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance.

Fire Risk Reduction Communities
Assembly Bill (AB) 1823 (2019) amended PRC Section 4290.1 to require that, on or before July 1, 2022, the State Board must develop criteria for and maintain a list of local agencies considered to be a “Fire Risk Reduction Community” located in the SRA or VHFHSZ, identified pursuant to GC § 51178, that meet best practices for local fire planning. Criteria that must be used to develop the Fire Risk Reduction Community list include recently developed or updated CWPPs, adoption of the board’s recommendations to improve the Safety Element, participation in Fire Adapted Communities and Firewise USA programs, and compliance with the Board’s minimum fire safety standards.

In 2022, the City of Berkeley applied for and was accepted onto the inaugural Fire Risk Reduction Communities List.

State Emergency Plan
The foundation of California’s emergency planning and response is a statewide mutual aid system which is designed to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other support are provided to jurisdictions whenever their own resources prove to be inadequate to cope with a given situation.

The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement (California Government Code Sections 8555–8561) requires signatories to the agreement to prepare operational plans to use within their jurisdiction, and outside their area. These plans include fire and non-fire

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

4.17-10
emergencies related to natural, technological, and war contingencies. The State of California, all State agencies, all political subdivisions, and all fire districts signed this agreement in 1950.

Section 8568 of the California Government Code, the “California Emergency Services Act,” states that “th
e State Emergency Plan shall be in effect in each political subdivision of the state, and the governing body of each political subdivision shall take such action as may be necessary to carry out the provisions thereof.” The Act provides the basic authorities for conducting emergency operations following the proclamations of emergencies by the Governor or appropriate local authority, such as a City Manager. The provisions of the Act
are reflected and expanded on by appropriate local
emergency ordinances. The Act further describes the function and operations of government at all levels during extraordinary emergencies, including war.

All local emergency plans are extensions of the State of California Emergency Plan. The State Emergency Plan conforms to the requirements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which is the system required by Government Code 8607(a) for managing emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies (CalOES 2020). SEMS incorporates the functions and principles of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Master Mutual Aid Agreement, existing mutual aid systems, the operational area concept, and multi-agency or inter-agency coordination. Local governments must use SEMS to be eligible for funding of their response-related personnel costs under state disaster assistance programs. The SEMS consists of five organizational levels that are activated as necessary, including: field response, local government, operational area, regional, and state. CalOES divides the state into several mutual aid regions. The County of Alameda is located in Mutual Aid Region II, which includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Napa, Marin, Solano, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties (CalOES 2021). The City of Berkeley’s 2016 Emergency Operations Plan is aligned with the State Emergency Plan and comports with all SEMS requirements.

Government Code Sections 65302 and 65302.5, Senate Bill 1241 (Kehoe) of 2012
Senate Bill (SB) 1241 requires cities and counties to address fire risk in SRAs and VHFHSZs in the safety element of their general plans. On July 29, 2019, the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection completed its review of Berkeley’s Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element; the City accepted the Board’s recommendations.

The bill also amended CEQA to direct amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G environmental checklist to include questions related to fire hazard impacts for projects located in or near lands classified as SRAs and VHFHSZs. In adopting these Guidelines, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recognized that generally, low-density, leapfrog development may create higher wildfire risks than high-density, infill development.2 In general, the Draft Housing Opportunity Sites would not be considered leapfrog development sites as they are located near and amongst existing development.

California Public Utilities Commission General Order 166 General Order 166 Standard 1.E requires that investor-owned utilities (IOU) develop a Fire Prevention Plan which describes measures that the electric utility will implement to mitigate the threat of power-line fires generally. Additionally, this standard requires that IOUs outline a plan to

2 “Leapfrog development” describes the construction of new development at a distance from existing developed areas, with undeveloped land between the existing and new development.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-11
mitigate power line fires when wind conditions exceed the structural design standards of the line during a Red Flag Warning in a high fire threat area. Fire Prevention Plans created by IOUs are required to identify specific parts of the utility’s service territory where the conditions described above may occur simultaneously. Standard 11 requires that utilities report annually to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding compliance with General Order 166 (CPUC 2017).

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides the electrical utility infrastructure for the City of Berkeley. The most recently available report for PG&E that discuses a Wildfire Mitigation Plan is dated February 5, 2021 (PG&E 2021). PG&E has developed an interim fire threat map that shows high fire threat districts according to CPUC. Berkeley is graded in both High Fire District Tier 2 and Tier 3.

California Government Code 51182 and Assembly Bill 3074 California Government Code 51182 sets the requirements for creation of defensible space zones around residential units built in WUI areas. Currently the law requires two zones of vegetation management reaching to 30 feet and 100 feet from the residence. In 2020 the legislature passed Assembly Bill 3074, which requires the Board of Forestry to develop regulations for a third zone within 0 to 5 feet of the home by January 1, 2023. Local and regional fire districts are tasked with regulation and inspection of defensible spaces. As of July 1, 2021, documentation of a compliant Defensible Space Inspection by the jurisdictional fire district is a condition of the sale or transfer of any residential property located in a high FHSZ or VHFHSZ.

Evacuation Route Requirements
In 2019, two separate bills (AB 747 and SB 99) were signed into law that added new requirements for disclosing residential development without at least two points of ingress and egress and addressing the presence and adequacy of evacuation routes in the general plan safety element.

SB 99 (2019) amended GC § 65302(g) to require that, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2020, the safety element must be updated to include information identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes (i.e., points of ingress and egress) (GC § 65302(g)(5)).

AB 747 (2019) added GC § 65302.15, which requires that, upon the next revision of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) on or after January 1, 2022, or beginning on or before January 1, 2022, if a local jurisdiction has not adopted a LHMP, the safety element must be reviewed and updated as necessary to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. If a LHMP, emergency operations plan, or other document that fulfills commensurate goals and objectives, a local agency may use that information in the safety element to comply with this requirement by summarizing and incorporating by reference such a plan or other document into the safety element. The 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan maps Berkeley’s Designated Emergency Access and Evacuation Routes.

These new requirements apply to all types of hazards in the safety element and are not unique to fire.

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

4.17-12
c. Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies
City of Berkeley General Plan
The Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the City’s General Plan includes the following policies related to wildfires:

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

Policy S-2: Neighborhood Preparation and Education. Continue to provide education, emergency preparedness training and supplies to the community at the neighborhood level to support neighborhood- and community-based disaster response planning.

Policy S-3: Public Information. Publicize disaster preparedness efforts (such as CERT) and expand public awareness of specific hazards and risks by making available all relevant information including mapping and reports on various hazards, information on vulnerability and risk reduction techniques, evacuation routes, and emergency services, and information on financial and technical assistance resources.

Policy S-4: Special Needs Communities. Continue to work with the social service community to ensure the safety of special needs populations.

Policy S-5: The City’s Role in Leadership and Coordination. Ensure that the City provides leadership and coordination of the private sector, public institutions, and other public bodies in emergency preparedness.

Policy S-6: Damage Assessment. Establish and maintain a rapid damage assessment capability.

Policy S-7: Emergency Water Supply. Protect life and property in the event of an earthquake by evaluating alternate drinking water and firefighting water supply in the event of failure of the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) water supply.

Policy S-8: Continuity of Operations. Provide for the continuation of City government and services following a major disaster.

Policy S-9: Pre-Event Planning. Establish pre-event planning for post-disaster recovery as an integral element of the emergency preparedness programs of the City Council and each of the City departments.

Policy S-10: Sustaining Mitigation Initiatives. Improve public awareness and establish new public/private partnerships to implement mitigation initiatives in the community and region through programs such as Project Impact.

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-13
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.

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

City of Berkeley 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Berkeley’s 2019 LHMP is an appendix to the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the City of Berkeley’s General Plan. It contains the following mitigation actions to lessen the severity of wildfire:
 Reduce fire risk in existing development through fire code updates and enforcement.  Reduce fire risk in existing development through vegetation management  Explore possibility of a program to inspect vacant lots throughout the City  Manage and promote pedestrian evacuation routes in Fire Zones 2 and 3.  Improve responder access and community evacuation in Fire Zones 2 and 3 through roadway maintenance and appropriate parking restrictions.
 Explore other strategies for reducing the potential threats of overhead utility wires.  Complete the Phase 3 undergrounding study spearheaded by the Undergrounding Subcommittee in collaboration with Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Public Works Commission. This is a citywide study to underground overhead wires on arterial and collector streets as a component of maintaining ingress and egress on roads during a major disaster.
 Work with EBMUD to ensure an adequate water supply during emergencies and disaster recovery.
 Define clean air standards for buildings during poor air quality events and use those standards to assess facilities for the Berkeley community.
 Implement energy assurance strategies at critical City facilities.  Work with partners to identify additional non-City critical facilities and develop strategies to provide clean backup power at these sites.

City of Berkeley Fire Wildfire Evacuation Risk Mitigation Ordinance The primary purpose of Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 12.99, Wildfire Hazard Evacuation Risk Mitigation Ordinance, is to permit and promote the construction of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units while reducing potential impacts of new development in Fire Zones 2 and 3 as designated in the BMC Chapter 19.48 and the Hillside Overlay District. These areas have unique conditions and hazards that require additional restrictions on accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units (ADUs and JADUs) because of impacts of traffic flow and public safety consistent with Government Code 65852.2. Government Code 65852.2, subdivision (a)(1)(a), allows local agencies to regulate ADUs based on adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts of traffic flow and public safety. The Hillside Overlay District (as defined in BMC 23.306.020) includes all lots within Berkeley’s designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone that are zoned R- 1H (Single-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), R-2H (Restricted Two-Family Residential— Hillside Overlay), R-2AH (Restricted Multiple-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), or ES-R (Environmental

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

4.17-14
Safety-Residential). The Hillside Overlay District contains narrow, steep, and winding streets with substandard widths, steep slopes, sharp curves, and hairpin turns, which make vehicle navigation in this area difficult. Residents in the path of a major fire will attempt to leave via private vehicles with personal belongings. When there is another major hills area fire or an earthquake, emergency access and egress on substandard roadways will be constrained, leading to traffic backups and people needing to abandon vehicles and evacuate on foot. Evacuees will conflict with responders as they try to fight the fire and reach others who need help to leave.

These challenges are especially prevalent in Fire Zone 3, the Panoramic Hill area. Panoramic Way is the on
ly paved road into and out of this neighborhood. It forms a single loop, 12-18’ wide, that
begins and ends just south of Memorial Stadium. The street’s narrow width and hairpin turns make it barely accessible to fire apparatus, which are required to perform three-point-turns to ascend the Hill. Panoramic Way’s narrow width also means that at many points the road is not wide enough to allow vehicles to pass one another. Under normal conditions, vehicles responding to medical emergencies have been impeded by commercial vehicles, trash collection trucks, and illegally- parked personal vehicles.

Further intensifying the neighborhood’s vulnerability, the Hayward Fault runs under Panoramic Way, just before it crosses the parking lot and bisects the Memorial Stadium. In a catastrophic Hayward Fault earthquake, the Panoramic Hill area will likely be isolated from the City’s emergency services, all of which lie on the other side of the fault to the west (with the exception of Fire Station 7, which lies north of the UC Berkeley campus).

Berkeley Fire Code
BMC Chapter 19.48 adopts the California Fire Code and also includes additional provisions known as the Berkeley Fire Code. Berkeley requires that buildings in Fire Zones 2 and 3 (as described above under “Wildland-Urban Interface Building Standards”), which include the hillside areas, utilize ignition resistive construction materials, employ preventative construction methods, and create defensible space in order to make them resistant to wildfire. Specific projects must file a Fire Protection Plan, or Vegetation Management Plan, which is a document prepared for a Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Area. It describes ways to minimize and mitigate potential for loss from wildfire exposure. The Fire Protection Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the latest standards of the Berkeley Fire Department. The Fire Protection Plan must be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the Berkeley Fire Department and must be enforced and maintained by the responsible party or their designated agent. The Berkeley Fire Department may charge an appropriate fee for the review, approval and processing of the Fire Protection Plan in accordance with the hourly rate established by City Council resolution.

Berkeley Emergency Operations Plan
The City’s 2016 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) establishes procedures to implement Berkeley’s Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) System. The MAC system is the element of Berkeley’s Emergency Management Program focused on response to and short-term recovery from emergencies, disasters, incidents and events. Berkeley’s MAC System is made up of the facilities, equipment, personnel, communications and procedures that City government and external partners use to respond. This EOP Base Plan establishes the authorities, structures and responsibilities of the Policy Level, departments and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). It describes the City’s coordination with County, regional, State and federal entities, as well as external Berkeley partners.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-15
d. Local Guidance and Resources
Extreme Fire Weather
The National Weather Service declares a “Red Flag Warning” when low humidity and high winds combine for elevated fire risk. The Berkeley Fire Department declares “Extreme Fire Weather”—a Berkeley-specific designation—when forecasted wind speeds and humidity levels during a Red Flag Warning would produce especially risky conditions in Berkeley.

The Berkeley Fire Department recommends that residents make plans to leave Fire Zones 2 and 3 during periods of Extreme Fire Weather. Extreme Fire Weather is more rare than Red Flag Warnings.

In 2020, Berkeley had 25 days of Red Flag Warnings and only two days of Extreme Fire Weather.

This narrow range of weather conditions is when the most destructive fires occur.

Berkeley Ready Household Fire Weather Planning Tool
The City of Berkeley’s Household Fire Warning Tool assists residents in making important decisions on how keep their household safe during fire weather. This tool is a step-by-step guide to making a fire weather plan for a resident’s household ahead of time to address unpredictable and rapidly changing fire conditions individual awareness, family preparedness, and self-sufficiency for potential catastrophes or emergencies. The guide helps residents identify the following:
 Identify the trigger for a resident leaving the hills  Decide where to go
 Ident
ify evacuation routes
Berkeley Ready Wildfire Evacuation Checklist
The City of Berkeley has developed a Wildfire Evacuation Checklist for residents. This checklist provides guidance on what to include in a Go-Bag, how to prepare your home of a wildfire, guidance on checking on others, and other extra items to bring. The Berkeley Ready Wildfire Evacuation Checklist also provides information on how to set up emergency alerts and locate evacuation zones.

4.17.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Impacts related to wildfire hazards and risks were evaluated using FHSZ mapping for the City of Berkeley, aerial imagery, and topographic mapping. Impacts of development anticipated during the planning period of the HEU would be considered significant if the proposed project would exacerbate existing conditions.

According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, development may have a significant adverse impact if the project is in or near SRAs or VHFHSZs and would do any of the following:

1. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;

2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;

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

4.17-16

3. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or what may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or,

4. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flo
oding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes.

As shown on Figure 4.17-1, Berkeley is not an SRA and the City is locally responsible for any sites located within its boundary. However, as shown on Figure 4.17-2, the EIR sites inventory includes 282 inventory sites located Zone 1, 81 inventory sites in Zone 2, and 1 inventory site in Zone 3.

These opportunity sites are currently vacant and/or underutilized sites and are not associated with actual development proposals. In addition, the proposed HEU would encourage additional housing and a mix of housing types in the middle housing rezoning districts (R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R).

These districts are shown on Figure 2-5 in Section 2, Project Description. Most of the area within the VHFHSZ is within the R-1, R-2, and R-2A districts so some of the additional infill middle housing could be in the VHFHSZ.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact W-1 DEVELOPMENT DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD OF THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD OCCUR IN

HILLSIDE AREAS LOCATED NEAR A STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA AND IN A VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. THE CITY EMPLOYS MULTIPLE STRATEGIES TO REDUCE THE IMPAIRMENT THE HEU WOULD HAVE ON EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND EVACUATION. NONETHELESS, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the project identifies housing sites that will accommodate the RHNA plus an additional buffer; up to a total of 19,098 units. For the purposes of the EIR analysis, 82 are in inventory sites located in Fire Zones 2 and 3, which are considered the VHFHSZ, as shown on Figure 4.17-2. These sites are currently vacant and/or underutilized and are not associated with actual development proposals. Further, the proposed HEU would facilitate increased residential development in the R-1, R-2, and R-2A districts which includes portions within the VHFHSZ.

The City of Berkeley’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) employs multi-agency coordination to establish proper disaster prevention or mitigate the impacts brought forth by an unexpected emergency event. With coordination set up between County, regional, State, and federal entities, the plan implements an all-hazards approach to prepare the City for a wide range of events of varying magnitudes and intensities.

The City also provides multiple evacuation preparedness strategies. This includes public communication strategies including real-time evacuation mapping using the Zonehaven system, as well as mass notification methods such AC Alert messages that are sent to phones and emails and the 1610 AM radio system that can broadcast instructions and warnings to the public. Further, Measure FF, which was approved by Berkeley voters in November 2020, is funding additional evacuation management efforts including a network of emergency warning sirens that will alert residents to evacuate or shelter in place by broadcasting spoken, hyperlocal messages.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-17
While increasing residential density in the Berkeley Hills would not necessarily increase the risk of wildfire, as discussed below under Impact W-2, construction of individual housing developments in VHFHSZs could interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans as a result of temporary construction activities within rights-of-way. However, temporary construction barricades or other construction-related obstructions used for project development that could impede emergency access would be subject to the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, which include the following condition to prepare a Transportation Construction Plan subject to City review and approval:

Transportation Construction Plan. The applicant and all persons associated with the project are hereby notified that a Transportation Construction Plan (TCP) is required for all phases of construction, particularly for the following activities:
 Alterations, closures, or blockages to sidewalks, pedestrian paths or vehicle travel lanes (includi
ng bicycle lanes);
 Storage of building materials, dumpsters, debris anywhere in the public ROW;  Provision of exclusive contractor parking on-street; or  Significant truck activity.

The applicant shall secure the City Traffic Engineer’s approval of a TCP. Please contact the Office of Transportation at 981-7010, or 1947 Center Street, and ask to speak to a traffic engineer. In addition to other requirements of the Traffic Engineer, this plan shall include the locations of material and equipment storage, trailers, worker parking, a schedule of site operations that may block traffic, and provisions for traffic control. The TCP shall be consistent with any other requirements of the construction phase.

Contact the Permit Service Center (PSC) at 1947 Center Street or 981-7500 for details on obtaining Construction/No Parking Permits (and associated signs and accompanying dashboard permits). Please note that the Zoning Officer and/or Traffic Engineer may limit off-site parking of construction-related vehicles if necessary to protect the health, safety or convenience of the surrounding neighborhood. A current copy of this Plan shall be available at all times at the construction site for review by City Staff.

Implementation of a TCP would limit the extent to which development during the planning period of the HEU would impair or physically interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation procedures.

As discussed above and in the regulatory setting, established regulations and safety procedures have been implemented to prevent the impairment of emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans, including through Fire Department review and approval of construction plans to ensure compliance with the Fire Code. Additional fire evacuation improvements are included within the Wildfire Hazard Evacuation Risk Mitigation Ordinance, giving local agencies the capability to regulate ADU’s in accordance to how they would impact traffic flow and water services. Also included in the ordinance is BMC 23.306.020B, which places restrictions on ADU’s and JADU’s located within the Hillside Overlay District, as they can lead to impacts on traffic flow and public safety if left unmanaged.

Based on all of the above, the City’s existing regulations and project review procedures would help to ensure that additional impacts related to impairment of adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be avoided. However, based on this being a plan level analysis

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

4.17-18
and the potential for unusual site-specific conditions, project specific or road specific conditions, and the general ongoing fire risk in the Berkeley Hills, future development under the proposed HEU may result in impacts. An impact to emergency operations and evacuations could occur from construction of future projects if they were to result in temporary road closures, therefore potentially reducing available emergency evacuation routes. Construction of new development could involve temporary lane closures or otherwise block traffic that could impede the ability of emergency vehicles to access the area. This would be limited to the duration of the construction period and only affect streets adjacent to the construction site.

The additional residents in the area associated with new residential development could further inhibit safe evacuation by putting more residents in the area that would require evacuation on narrow hillside roadways. Additional residents in the hills could also make wildfire risk more acute because more people will need to use evacuation routes at the same time. As such, impacts related to emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The City of Berkeley requires a Transportation Construction Plan as a Standard Condition of Approval and would evaluate emergency access and consistency with the Fire Code and other development requirements as part of the development review process. Further, the City is undertaking emergency evacuation planning as part of citywide efforts described above. No other mitigation measures are feasible to address potential site-specific impacts.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for a Transportation Construction Plan requires applicants to prepare a TCP which has the effect of ensuring that emergency evacuation routes are not obstructed or hindered in the event of a wildfire. This would reduce the potential for development under the proposed HEU to hinder or impair emergency access and evacuation during construction. Future development would also be required to comply with applicable development standards including the Berkeley Fire Code. No additional mitigation measures beyond adherence to existing procedures are required or are feasible. Nonetheless, for some development projects, impacts may result from the potential for unusual site-specific or road conditions, project characteristics, and the general ongoing fire risk in the Berkeley Hills. Based on this, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-19
Threshold 2: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Impact W-2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE

HILLSIDE AREAS LOCATED NEAR A STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA AND IN A VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH EXTENSIVE REGULATIONS AND FIRE SAFETY PROVISIONS IN THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING THE FIRE CODE. BASED ON THE EXISTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS WITH BERKELEY FIRE DEPARTMENT, IMPACTS WOULD BE GENERALLY AVOIDED. HOWEVER, IT REMAINS POSSIBLE THAT EVEN WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS,

CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER HUMAN ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT IN OR NEAR AN SRA OR IN A

VHFHSZ COULD EXACERBATE WILDFIRE RISK AND EXPOSE EXISTING AND NEW RESIDENTS TO POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND UNCONTROLLED SPREAD OF A WILDFIRE. ADDITIONALLY, BY INCREASING THE POPULATION OF THE WUI AREA, MORE PEOPLE WILL BE DIRECTLY THREATENED WHEN A WILDLAND FIRE OCCURS.

THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

The proposed HEU would encourage development in the R-1, R-2, and R-2A districts in a VHFHSZ.

New housing in the VHFSHZ would not be likely to increase the likelihood of fire ignition or speed of spread. It is not expected that build out of the proposed HEU would increase fire risk because it would not create additional wildland spaces and therefore would not increase the extent of the wildland-urban interface. As documented by Keeley and Syphard in the International Journal of Wildland Fire (2018), in recent decades (since circa 1980), human-caused fires have been negatively correlated with population density, meaning more developed areas are less likely to be affected by wildfires throughout the State (Keeley and Syphard 2018) and suggesting that additional development would not necessarily lead to more wildfires.

Additionally, development would be required to comply with State and Local regulations. On a statewide level, the California Fire Code includes safety measures to minimize the threat of fire, including ignition-resistant construction with exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of the ground to the roof system and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves, and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers. Under the California Building Standards Code, construction would also be required to adhere to an assortment of building standards, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, via CCR Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards.

On a local level, the Berkeley Fire Code (Section 4907.1 of the City Code) states that buildings and structures within the VHFHSZ must m
aintain defensible space as outlined in Government Code 51175-51189 and Section 4908 of Berkeley’s Municipal Code. Section 16.20.020(G) of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16) outlines that the landowner or developer must install water mains, fire hydrants, and fire appurtenances to supply water for fire suppression conformance with district standards. As outlined within the Berkeley Fire Code Section 4902.1, projects within the Wildland Urban Interface must provide a Fire Protection Plan (FPP), which prescribes actions taken to reduce the potential for wildfire exposure through mitigation measures and risk minimization. These actions include utilizing ignition-resistive construction materials, employing preventative construction methods, and creating defensible space. The City requires that the responsible party formulates the FPP based on the Berkeley Fire Department’s latest standards. The plan is then sent to the Berkeley Fire Department for review and approval. The Fire Department ensures that the

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

4.17-20
plan is properly executed by the responsible party or their designated agent. During Red Flag Warnings, the City also imposes limitations on spark-producing construction activities. Government Code 65852.2 subdivision (a)(1)(A) allows agencies to regulate ADUs with consideration to how they will impact water and sewer services as well as the flow of traffic and public safety. With exclusive focus on the VHFHSZ, BMC 23.306.020B places restrictions on ADUs and JADUs as they have impacts on the flow of traffic as well as public safety.

Increasing development in the VHFHSZ directly increases the number of residents exposed to a wildland-urban interface fire. Additionally, increased density in this area will further complicate evacuation for existing and new residents. Based on documented experiences from the 1991 East Bay Hills Fire, the City expects evacuation during a Diablo-wind-driven fire to be a challenge, requiring many to abandon vehicles and continue on foot. The evacuation challenges in the area are present due to the existing population density, roadway network, and hilly topography, and development in the area will further complicate these efforts. Acknowledging the intractable challenge posed by the VHFHSZ’s density, roadways, and topography, the City has evolved its recommendations for fire evacuation. The City encourages residents of the VHFHSZ to understand fire weather and preemptively relocate out of the Berkeley hills during Extreme Fire Weather events. This is to facilitate evacuation in advance of any wildfire event, should one occur. Tools and resources are provided on the City of Berkeley’s website to better equip the public to plan for this early departure, as well as for wildfire evacuation response, including a detailed map of the City’s emergency access and evacuation routes.

Based on all of the above, the City’s extensive regulations and project review scheme would ensure that impacts related to future development under the proposed HEU in the VHFSHZ areas exacerbating wildfire risks and resulting in risks to people and structures from pollutants would be avoided. However, based on the potential for site-specific conditions or hazards; project characteristics that are unique; and the general risk of fire in the Berkeley Hills, impacts may occur.

Additionally, by increasing the population of the VHFHSZ, more people will be directly threatened and evacuation and firefighting efforts will be further challenged when a fire occurs. Therefore, impacts are potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The City of Berkeley requires various wildfire risk mitigation actions of development projects in the VHFHSZ as part of the Berkeley’s Municipal Code, Berkeley Fire Code, and Berkeley Fire Wildfire Evacuation Risk Mitigation Ordinance. Additionally, a Fire Protection Plan is required to reduce the potential for loss due to wildfire exposure through mitigation measure and risk minimization, in accordance with the Berkeley Fire Department’s latest standards. No other mitigation measures are feasible.

Significance After Mitigation
Compliance with existing City regulations and the implementation of the City’s requirement for a Fire Protection Plan to be prepared for development of housing projects in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area would reduce the potential to exacerbate wildfire risk during construction and after projects are constructed. This would reduce the severity of potential impacts related to exposure to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the likelihood of wildfire ignition. No additional mitigation measures beyond adherence to existing procedures are required or are feasible. Nonetheless, for some development projects, even with implementation of these wildfire prevention measures, impacts may result from the potential for unusual site-specific or road

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-21
conditions, project characteristics, and the general ongoing fire risk in Berkeley Hills. Additionally, by increasing the population of the VHFHSZ, more people will be directly threatened and evacuation and firefighting efforts will be further challenged when a fire occurs. Based on this, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Threshold 3: If lo cated in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Impact W-3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING

ON INVENTORY SITES AND IN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED NEAR A STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA AND IN A VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. THE PROPOSED HEU COULD EXPOSE PEOPLE AND STRUCTURES TO RISK DUE TO THE TERRAIN AND SLOPE IN THE BERKELEY HILLS. THIS COULD RESULT IN POTENTIAL RISKS SUCH AS LANDSLIDES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

Berkeley faces an ongoing threat from a wildland fire along its hillsides, where wildland and residential areas intermix. This includes proposed housing in in the VHFHSZ under the proposed HEU. If a severe wildfire were to occur in the hillside area of Berkeley, structures downslope would be at risk of landslides.

Berkeley’s LHMP prov ides information on the landslide risk in the hills area. As described in the
LHMP, Berkeley’s WUI fires can increase the area’s risk of landslides. When all supporting vegetation is burned away, hillsides become destabilized and prone to erosion. The charred surface of the earth is hard and absorbs less water. When winter rains come, this leads to increased runoff, erosion, and landslides in hilly areas.

Erosion and land slippage after fires can also lead to temporary or permanent displacement and property damage or loss. In addition, the increase in housing in a VHFHSZ could increase the exposure and vulnerability of people living downslope in these areas.

Development that could occur during the HEU period, such as increased development as a result of rezoning, could expose people and structures to landslides by encouraging development in the hillsides in a VHFHSZ where landslides could occur and could be exacerbated after a wildfire. The City requires a Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Investigation for all development projects located in a State-designated Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction, landslide, or earthquake fault rupture, as defined by the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and shown on the “Environmental Constraints Map,” sites in the VHFHSZ would be required to prepare a site-specific geotechnical investigation. This would involve identifying the degree of potential hazards, providing design parameters for the project based on the hazard, and describing appropriate design measures to address hazards. Future development would be required to adhere to such recommendations to mitigated landslide hazards. Nonetheless, because of the hillside slopes, landslide susceptibility, and wildfire susceptibility, development under the proposed HEU potentially exposes people and structures to significant risks, including landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The City of Berkeley requires Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Investigation for development projects located in a State-designated Seismic Hazard Zone and requires numerous wildfire risk reduction measures for projects in the VHFHSZ as part of the Berkeley Municipal Code, Berkeley Fire

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

4.17-22
Code, and Berkeley Fire Wildfire Evacuation Risk Mitigation Ordinance. No other mitigation measures are feasible.

Significance After Mitigation
BMC requirement of site-specific geotechnical investigations would reduce potential impacts related to landslides for individual future development projects. These requirements would reduce potential impacts such as landslides due to runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes following a potential wildfire. However, based on the potential for unusual site-specific conditions or project characteristics, and the general ongoing fire risk in the Berkeley Hills, impacts of a housing development project under the HEU may still occur. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Threshold 4: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Impact W-4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING ON INVENTORY SITES AND IN THE R-1, R-2, AND R-2A DISTRICTS LOCATED NEAR A STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA AND IN A VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. HOWEVER, THE AREA IS ALREADY DEVELOPED AND SERVED

BY EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED THAT INSTALLATION OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE OR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD OCCUR. SHOULD

ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE OR CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH INFRASTRUCTURE OCCUR, IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE W-1 WOULD REDUCE THE RISK OF FIRE DURING CONSTRUCTION. OVERALL, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

The proposed HEU would encourage development in a VHFHSZ, but this area is already zoned for residential development and is developed with residences. The project would not place development in new areas such that new or extended roadways, power lines, or other utilities would be required. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would require the installation of new infrastructure because the area is already serviced by such infrastructure. As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, it is not anticipated that new water utility infrastructure would be required. The Berkeley Fire Code authorizes the Fire Chief to specify water supply and road design standards (such as the number of roads required for access to the site, the road width, and weight capacity). New development could require the installation and maintenance of new or improved roads, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities, the construction and operation of which could introduce potential sources of wildfire ignition, such as the sparking of an overhead power line or construction equipment or the operation of resident vehicles. Compliance with existing State and local fire safety measures would substantially reduce the risk of wildfire.

Nonetheless, although ignition sources have declined markedly in recent decades, one notable exception is powerline ignitions (Keeley and Syphard 2018). Wildfire ignitions due to infrastructure (particularly aboveground power lines) may exacerbate fire risk or may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Because new development under the HEU would occur as infill development in previously developed areas of Berkeley situated in the VHFHSZ, increased risk associated with new development would most likely be limited to the installation period of new associated infrastructure. Although impacts are unlikely based upon existing regulations, impacts may occur should new development require the installation and maintenance of new or improved

Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-23
roads, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities, or if there are unusual site-specific conditions or aspects of the infrastructure project that would increase the general ongoing fire risk in the Berkeley Hills. Impacts are determined to be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is required.

W-1 Undergrounding of Power Drops in the VHFHSZs
The City shall require that new or upgraded power drops located in the very high fire hazard severity zone be installed underground. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for undergrounding of power drops.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure W-1, would reduce the potential for impacts under this threshold by placing power lines underground in areas subject to wildfire risk. However, it may not be feasible to impose this requirement on all projects. Additionally, potentially unusual site-specific conditions or aspects of the infrastructure project, including power line installation, may result in wildfire impacts from the installation or maintenance of infrastructure required by build out under the HEU. This impact would therefore remain significant and unavoidable. 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 wildfire impacts is Berkeley and its immediate surroundings. This geographic scope is appropriate for wildfire, because wildfires can cause impacts to large areas. As described in Section 3, Environmental Setting, Development that is considered part of the cumulative analysis includes buildout under the propose HEU and buildout under the University of California, Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and Housing Projects #1 and #2.

In and near Berkeley, the VHFHSZs are located largely along the WUI borders with the hilly northwestern areas, such as those shown in Figure 4.17-1. Within the geographic scope for this cumulative analysis, wildfire-related impacts could be significant if development is in or near Berkeley’s VHFHSZ. The proposed LRDP update would involve improvements and development in Campus Park, the Hill Campus West, the Hill Campus East, the Clark Kerr Campus, and the City Environs Properties, portions of which fall within the VHFHSZ. Development within the VHFHSZ could exacerbate wildfire risks. Like development under the proposed HEU, new development under the LRDP would be subject to statewide standards for fire safety in the California Fire Code.

Nonetheless, because the proposed HEU could exacerbate wildfire risk in Berkeley’s VHFHSZ and development under the proposed LRDP update could also exacerbate such risks, a cumulative impact would occur and the proposed projects’ contribution would be cumulatively considerable.

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

4.17-24

This page intentionally left blank

Other CEQA Required Discussions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section discusses the potential significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing impacts, and irreversible environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed HEU.

5.1 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be
Avoided
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Implementation of the proposed HEU could result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to historical resources (see Section 4.4, Cultural Resources), construction noise (see Section 4.11, Noise), and wildfire (see Section 4.17, Wildfire).

5.2 Growth Inducement
Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment.

However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed project’s growth inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project-induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas.

5.2.1 Population Growth
As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the development facilitated by the proposed HEU would accommodate regional and local population growth that generates the need for additional housing, including in Berkeley. The proposed project would address the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) assigned by ABAG of 8,934 units, of which 3,854 units must be for lower income households and could provide a buffer of an estimated 10,164 units. To meet the objectives of the RHNA and provide sufficient capacity for housing development, the Housing Element identifies sites suited for residential development, and identifies implementation programs and zoning policies to encourage additional housing for all segments of the population. This includes the already-accomplished rezoning for the North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations, programs to encourage additional residential development in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts, and zoning map and height amendments in the Southside area for additional student housing development. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would align with ABAG’s RHNA determination and the State’s statutory requirements, which are established based on anticipated growth within the city and region.

Overall, full buildout could facilitate an estimated population growth of approximately 47,443 new residents by 2031 based on the maximum facilitated buildout of 19,098 housing units. However, actual development will depend on many factors not reflected in the inventory, including the pace of construction and absorption of new units according to economic cycles, land availability, capital

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

5-2
and financing, construction material and labor costs and availability, and so on. Growth anticipated under the proposed HEU is intended to meet regional housing needs over the longer term. Given that the State is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply and mismatched incomes and housing costs, the additional units and affordability programs would further assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting housing needs. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly.

As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Q uality, and Section 4.7, G reenhouse Gas Emissions, anticipated
development under the proposed HEU would not generate air quality or GHG emissions that would result in an unavoidably significant impact. The project would facilitate development of housing on vacant and/or underutilized sites within Berkeley’s urban footprint and mostly near transit corridors, BART stations, and Priority Development Areas such as the Southside area, which would reduce the usage of single-occupancy vehicles and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Furthermore, since the proposed housing inventory sites would be in areas with existing services and infrastructure, and the HEU itself does not propose new roads or infrastructure extensions, the HEU would not induce substantial unplanned growth in Berkeley.

Therefore, any population growth associated with the project would not result in significant long- term physical environmental effects.

5.2.2 Economic Growth
The proposed project would involve new residential development and would not directly result in new commercial or other uses that would generate employment opportunities. Development facilitated by the project would generate temporary employment opportunities during construction.

Because construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force, project construction would not be growth-inducing from an employment standpoint. The proposed project would not induce substantial economic expansion to the extent that direct physical environmental effects would result.

5.2.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth
Berkeley is primarily urbanized with existing infrastructure, including roads, water supply, sewers, storm drains and gas and electric power. The city’s existing roadway network would accommodate reasonably foreseeable development under the HEU. In the event that roadway upgrades are required to serve specific future development, such upgrades would likely be minor (e.g., lane reconfiguration or restriping) and are not anticipated to include the construction of new roads.

Although new residential development under the HEU may require minor utility upgrades or expansion (e.g., water line connections, site drainage design) on a project-by-project basis, such upgrades would be intended to accommodate the growth planned under the HEU within the City and would not induce growth outside of the city. As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, such upgrades would likely occur within existing utility easements and would not result in new areas of disturbance. Furthermore, EBMUD’s Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) serving the City has adequate capacity to treat project-generated sewage, and sufficient water supplies are available to serve reasonably foreseeable development under the HEU; therefore, the project would not necessitate construction of a new wastewater treatment facility or a new potable water facility. Generally, the HEU is specifically intended to concentrate new housing development in areas that are already served by infrastructure in order to ensure that infrastructure is utilized efficiently and in a manner that reduces the environmental impacts of development.

Other CEQA Required Discussions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-3
Concentrating development in the urbanized areas near transportation corridors and Priority Development Areas would generally avoid impacts to sensitive environmental conditions, such as agricultural, biological, and mineral resources, and minimize impacts since new development built to current standards would generally improve some existing conditions, such storm water runoff, surface water quality, and reduce the potential for substantial seismic damage. The HEU would not result in unplanned growth, but rather would upzone sites in R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts as well as increase housing density in the Southside to ensure that projected growth is accommodated. The HEU is aimed to satisfy the anticipated population growth in the region in an efficient manner consistent with State, regional, and City policies. Therefore, the HEU would efficiently utilize existing infrastructure, reduce regional congestion, and improve air quality.

5.3 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irreversible commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Construction activities related to reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobile and construction equipment, and energy used in manufacturing construction materials. However, as discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, use of such resources not be unusual as compared to common construction projects and would not substantially affect the availability of such resources.

Resources that would be consumed as a result of operation of reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed HEU include water. However, as discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the amount and rate of water consumption would not result in significant environmental impacts related to the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources.

The proposed project would also irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum products and natural gas. However, increasingly efficient building design would offset this demand to some degree by reducing energy demands. As described in Section 4.5, Energy, development facilitated by the project would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated residential buildings, and the Green Building Standards Code requires solar access, natural ventilation, and stormwater capture. In addition, new construction would be required to be all electric pursuant to the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy resources. Consequently, development facilitated by the project would not use unusual amounts of energy or construction

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

5-4
materials and impacts related to consumption of non-renewable and renewable resources would be less than significant. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and is not unique to the proposed project.

The proposed HEU demo nstrates that the city can accommodate the RHNA for Berkeley with out
rezoning and also includes implementation programs that would facilitate infill residential development on vacant, undeveloped, and underdeveloped sites in the City of Berkeley as well as locations where such development is encouraged by adopted plans due to their proximity to transit and transportation corridors. Construction and operation of the development facilitated by the project would involve an irreversible commitment of construction materials and non-renewable energy resources. Development would involve the use of buildings and associated infrastructure and landscaping. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and are not unique to the proposed project. While consumption of natural resources in the City would increase with implementation of the Housing Element Update due to development and associated population increases, it is also likely that in response to greenhouse gas reduction mandates, new technologies or systems will emerge, or will become more cost-effective or user- friendly, that will further reduce the City’s reliance upon nonrenewable natural resources.

Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of natural resources.

Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-1
6 Alternatives
As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives (stated in Section 2, Project Description, of this EIR) but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts.

As discussed in Section 2, Proj ect Description, the objectives for the propo sed project are as follows:

1. Adopt policies and programs that meet the City’s RHNA with the required buffer, provide additional housing opportunities consistent with other City priorities, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, and ensure ongoing compliance with State Housing Element law and the No Net Loss provisions of State law through the eight-year cycle.

2. Adopt policies and programs to encourage the development of affordable housing at a range of income levels consistent with RHNA, including at least 2,450 units for Very Low-Income households, at least 1,400 units for Low Income households, and at least 1,400 units for Moderate Income households.

3. Encourage the development of housing with access to transit, jobs, services, and community benefits in a manner that distributes affordable and special needs housing in high resource neighborhoods and affirmatively furthers fair housing.

4. Identify housing policies and programs that will conserve and rehabilitate existing units, provide services to increase housing opportunities for all residents of Berkeley, and increase the energy efficiency of both current and future housing units.

Included in this analysis are three alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of feasible options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project.

The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
 Alternative 1: No Project
 Alternative 2: No Rezoning in Hillside Overlay
 Alternative 3: No Middle Housing Rezoning

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative

6.1.1 Description
The “No Project” Alternative involves continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element as well as the City’s existing plans and policies that would accommodate development in accordance with the existing land use designations. Table 6-1 outlines an estimation of housing units that would be potentially developed under the No Project Alternative. As shown in the table, this alternative assumes development of 12,450 units, or approximately 6,648 fewer units than the assumed development under the proposed HEU of 19,098 units.

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

6-2
Table 6-1 Housing Units under No Project Alternative
Type of Project Number of Units
Entitled Projects 2,685
P
ipe
line Projects 2,415
North Berkeley and Ashby BART Station Projects 2,400
Accessory Dwelling Units 800
Additional 50% Anticipated Development1 4,150
Total 12,450
1 Accounts for housing units within Area Plans (Adeline Corridor Plan, Downtown Area Plan, Southside Plan) As stated in Section 2, Project Description, the City has determined based on the sites inventory that rezoning is not needed to meet the RHNA. However, recent development activity suggests current zoning alone does not deliver the level of deed-restricted affordable housing and economic diversity that the HEU aims to achieve. Therefore, while the No Project Alternative would partially meet Objective 1 by satisfying RHNA, it would not provide the same buffer as the proposed HEU. Further, the No Project Alternative would potentially not meet objectives 2, 3, and 4 to the same extent as with the policies and programs under the proposed HEU.

6.1.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
There would be less overall development in the city under the No Project Alternative than there would be under the proposed HEU. Still, as with development under the proposed HEU, most development would occur in Transit Priority Areas and no significant aesthetic impacts would occur.

Since less development would occur, there would be fewer possibilities for development to adversely affect scenic vistas. Impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant, the same as under the proposed HEU and slightly reduced in comparison. Similar to the proposed project, development under the No Project Alternative would be required to comply with the City’s development standards and requirements under the BMC that govern aesthetics, as well as policies within the City’s Urban Design and Preservation Element. Overall, aesthetics impacts under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant, the same as under the proposed HEU, and slightly reduced in comparison.
b. Air Quality
The No Project Alternative would involve reduced buildout in the City compared to the proposed HEU, resulting in incrementally fewer vehicle trips and mobile emissions than would the proposed HEU. Nonetheless, development under existing plans and regulations would not conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or regional planning efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and meet air quality standards. Therefore, this alternative would have a less than significant impact related to consistency with air quality plans, the same as under the proposed HEU.

Because of the reduced overall buildout, this alternative could involve less construction activity in the city and less overall emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction. Future discretionary projects in Berkeley, when proposed, would be required to undergo CEQA analysis to the extent they are not otherwise exempt, including an analysis of air quality impacts. Similar to the proposed

Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-3
HEU, mitigation may be required to ensure compliance with the BAAQMD’s current recommended basic control measures and the use of Tier 4 Final engines in construction equipment. The impact from construction emissions would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The assumed reduction in buildout under this alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips and associated mobile emissions relative to the proposed HEU. Therefore, similar to the proposed HEU, operational emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. This impact would remain less than significant
Due to the reduction in construction emissions, this alternative also would result in lower overall emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) during construction. Future discretionary projects in Berkeley, when proposed, would be required to undergo CEQA analysis to the extent they are not otherwise exempt, including an analysis of air quality impacts. Similar to the proposed HEU, mitigation may be required to ensure TAC emissions do not substantially affect sensitive populations.

Similar to the proposed HEU, this alternative would not include uses that generate substantial odorous emissions. Therefore, the impacts related to odors would remain less than significant. c. Biological Resources
There would be less overall development in the city under the No Project Alternative than there would be under the proposed HEU. As with development under the proposed HEU, development would occur within the city which is largely urbanized and lacking significant biological resources.

Overall, biological resources impacts under the No Project Alternative would be slightly reduced compared to those than those under the proposed HEU and would remain less than significant. d. Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, there are various buildings within the city that may qualify as historic structures. Under the No Project Alternative there would be less overall development than under the proposed HEU; however, it is still possible that historic structures could be impacted by this development. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain significant and unavoidable.

Development under this alternative could disturb unrecorded archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources, similar to the proposed HEU. However, with adherence to existing regulations regarding the discovery of human remains and compliance with City of Berkeley standard conditions of approval, these impacts would remain less than significant, the same as under the proposed HEU, and would be slightly reduced.
e. Energy
Under the No Project Alternative, fewer total residential units would be developed, which would result in an incremental reduction in energy usage compared to the proposed project. Fewer residential units would decrease electricity and natural gas consumption compared to the proposed HEU, and fewer residents would decrease consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel compared to proposed HEU. Overall, energy impacts under the No Project Alternative would be reduced compared to those under the proposed HEU and impacts would remain less than significant.

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

6-4
f. Geology and Soils
Although the No Project Alternative would result in a reduced buildout compared to the proposed HEU, development could still potentially be subject to seismically-induced ground shaking and other seismic hazards, including liquefaction, landslides, unstable soils, soil erosion, and expansive soils.

However, development under the No Project Alternative would be required to comply with policies and requirements within the California Building Code, the BMC, Berkeley General Plan, and the NPDES permit. Impacts would remain less than significant.

While the No Project Alternative would result in less development than the proposed HEU, ground disturbing construction activities in geologic units assigned a high or undetermined paleontological sensitivity could have the potential to significantly impact paleontological resources, similar to the proposed HEU. Therefore, mitigation measures may still be required for discretionary projects to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. However, it is likely that due to the reduced development under this alternative that fewer unidentified paleontological resources would be impacted than under the proposed HEU, making the potential impact less severe than the proposed HEU.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project Alternative, fewer total residential units would be developed, which would result in a smaller anticipated population increase and less construction-related and operational emissions in comparison to buildout under the proposed HEU. This alternative would result in lower GHG emissions than the proposed HEU as it would result in less development. However, this alternative would also not increase the number of residential units within Priority Development Areas (such as in the Southside) and along transit corridors to the same extent as under the proposed HEU, and therefore would not reduce driving distances or encourage the use of transit as much as development under the proposed HEU. Nonetheless, this alternative would not conflict with plans or policies to reduce GHG emissions impacts and therefore those impacts would be less than significant, the same as under the proposed HEU.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project Alternative would result in less development than the proposed HEU; however, the development allowed under this alternative could still occur within 0.25 mile of a school and could result in the release of hazardous materials. Just as with the proposed HEU, compliance with regional and federal regulations and compliance with policies within the Berkeley General Plan Safety Element and Environmental Management Element, as well as the Hazardous Materials Business Plan and the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan laid out by Berkeley and Alameda County would minimize the risk of releases and exposure to these materials. Impacts would be slightly reduced and would remain less than significant.

As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there are multiple locations within Berkeley that are designated as hazardous materials sites. While the No Project Alternative would result in less development overall, it could still occur on these sites. Future development would be subject to the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval and the City’s Toxics Management Division would evaluate projects to determine if Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are required to characterize potential contamination and develop a soil and groundwater management plan to address hazards during construction and operation. Therefore, impacts would be slightly

Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-5
reduced compared to the proposed HEU since there would be reduced development under this Alternative and impacts would remain less than significant. i. Hydrology and Water Quality
There would be less overall development in the city under the No Project Alternative than there would be under the proposed HEU, resulting in less construction activities that could release materials and degrade water quality and less discharge to storm drains that could contaminate and affect downstream waters. Similar to the proposed HEU, development under the No Project Alternative would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and would not substantially alter the drainage pattern on sites and increase surface runoff. Development would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, NPDES MS4 General Permit, Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, the BMC, and the City’s General Plan policies, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed HEU due to reduced development and would remain less than significant.
j. Land Use and Planning
The No Project Alternative would involve continuing a pattern of development consistent with existing land use controls and area plans. The No Project Alternative would not physically divide an established community and would not conflict with Plan Bay Area 2050, the Berkeley General Plan, or the BMC. Impacts would be less than significant and the same as those of the proposed HEU. k. Noise
The No Project Alternative would result in less development than the proposed HEU; however, this alternative would still generate construction and operational noise. Although development would be required to comply with daytime construction hours as set forth in the BMC and implement the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for construction noise, the type of construction equipment, proximity of sensitive receptors to the site, and overall duration of construction are still unknown.

Therefore, as with the proposed HEU, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, although slightly reduced in comparison with the proposed HEU.

Although operational noise associated with the No Project Alternative would still be regulated by respective standards in the BMC, such noise sources would occur to a lesser degree than under the proposed HEU. Nonetheless, on-site operational noise would remain typical of the urban environment and off-site traffic noise associated with development would not result in a perceptible increase in noise levels. Furthermore, while the No Project Alternative would subject less development to overhead flight patterns from airport, all development would be required to comply with State and local standards to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. Impacts would remain less than significant.

Development under the No Project Alternative could generate vibration exceeding thresholds for building damage, particularly during construction, similar to the proposed HEU. Future discretionary projects in Berkeley, when proposed, would be required to undergo CEQA analysis to the extent they are not otherwise exempt, including an analysis of noise and vibration impacts. Similar to the proposed HEU, future discretionary projects in Berkeley, when proposed, would be required to implement the City’s Standard Condition of Approval to control vibration such that vibration levels would not exceed the vibration criteria for building damage. Furthermore, as with the proposed HEU, it is not anticipated that operation of development under the No Project Alternative would

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

6-6
involve activities that would result in substantial vibration levels, such as use of heavy equipment and impacts would remain less than significant.

Overall noise impacts under the No Project Alternative would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed HEU.
l. Population and Housing
The No Project Alternative would result in a smaller number of residential units and therefore would result in a smaller population increase than the proposed HEU. Assuming 2.5 persons per unit, the reduction of 6,648 fewer units than under the proposed HEU would reduce population growth by 16,620 people compared to the proposed HEU. Overall population growth would be approximately 30,823, bringing the city’s population to 155,386. Similar to the proposed HEU, this would be consistent with State requirements for the RHNA and would be within the growth forecasts for Northwest Alameda County in Plan Bay Area 2050. The No Project Alternative would not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure that could indirectly lead to population growth. Impacts would be less than significant and generally the same as under the proposed HEU. m. Public Services and Recreation
The No Project Alternative would result in fewer residential units than the proposed HEU.

Therefore, the increase in demand on public services, including police protection, fire protection, schools, and parks would be less than that of the proposed HEU. As with the proposed project, services would be adequate to service future demand; impacts would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed HEU and would remain less than significant. n. Transportation
VMT under the No Project Alternative would be higher than under the proposed HEU, since it would not increase the number of residential units within Priority Development Areas (such as in the Southside) and along transit corridors to the same extent as under the proposed HEU, and therefore would not reduce driving distances or encourage the use of transit as much as development under the proposed HEU. Therefore, impacts to transportation would be greater than those of the proposed HEU. Nonetheless, it is anticipated that impacts would remain less than significant. o. Tribal Cultural Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, fewer residential units would be constructed, which would result in a reduced likelihood of impacting tribal cultural resources. Future development would be required to comply with requirements of AB 52 and SB 18, as well as City regulations governing protection of tribal cultural resources and archaeological resources. As a result of consultation under required state laws, mitigation may be required if tribal cultural resources are present.

Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed HEU.
p. Utilities and Service Systems
Under the No Project Alternative, fewer residential units would be constructed and therefore the demand on utilities would be reduced compared to the proposed HEU. This includes a reduction in water supply requirements, wastewater generation, electricity use, solid waste generation, and

Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-7
telecommunications. Impacts would be less than significant and reduced compared to those of the proposed HEU.
q. Wildfire
The No Project Alternative may result in fewer residential units being constructed in the City’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). Therefore, impacts related to wildfire could be reduced when compared to the HEU. Nonetheless, with SB 9 (see explanation below under Alternative 2), development could still occur in the hillside areas such that the unavoidably significant wildfire impacts would not be avoided.

6.2 Alternative 2: No Rezoning in the Hillside Overlay

6.2.1 Description
One of the implementation programs of the proposed HEU is to increase density in the R-1 District.

The program would specifically allow increases in the total number of units allowed on a lot, increase the total achievable floor area on a lot, and encourage a mix of unit sizes and densities, adjusting the level of discretion to allow approval of such projects with a Zoning Certificate. Under Alternative 2, this program would not apply to portions of the R-1 district within the Hillside Overlay (R-1H district), which is shown in Figure 6-1.

Without the rezoning in the R-1H district, approximately 150 units in the hillside area would not be built compared to buildout under the proposed HEU. However, if the R-1H district remains single family residential, SB 9 would apply there. SB 9, signed into law in 2021 and codified as Government Code sections 65852.21, 66411.7, and 66452.6, requires agencies to ministerially approve to up to two residential units on a parcel within a single-family residential zone if the development meets specific objective criteria. SB 9 also allows splitting one lot into two lots within a single-family residential zone and permitting up to two units on each parcel (four total dwelling units on what was formerly a single-unit lot) if the development complies with specific objective criteria. Based on SB 9 trends, it is anticipated that overall this alternative would not decrease development in the hillside overlay zone compared to buildout assumed under the proposed HEU. This alternative would meet the project objectives.

6.2.2 Impact Analysis
Because this alternative would involve the same buildout assumptions as under the proposed HEU, overall impacts with respect to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would be the same under this alternative. The same mitigation measures would be required and the significant and unavoidable impacts related to historical resources and construction noise would not be avoided.

With respect to wildfire, this alternative would not involve rezoning to increase allowed density in the VHFHSZ. Nonetheless, because development could still occur in the hillside areas in the VHFHSZ, the unavoidably significant wildfire impacts would not be avoided.

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

6-8
Figure 6-1 Hillside Overlay District

Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-9

6.3 Alternative 3: No Middle Housing Rezoning

6.3.1 Description
As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the Middle Housing Rezoning program of the proposed HEU is intended to increase density in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts. These districts are shown on Figure 2-5 in Section 2. The program would include Zoning Ordinance amendments that would allow increases in the total number of units allowed on a lot, increase the total achievable floor area on a lot, encourage a mix of unit sizes and densities, and adjust the level of discretion to approve such projects with a Zoning Certificate. For the purposes of this EIR, the Middle Housing Rezoning program was projected to result in 1,745 units over the Housing Element period.

Under Alternative 3, the Middle Housing Rezoning program would not be included in the Housing Element Update. Without Middle Housing Rezoning as part of the proposed project, approximately 975 units fewer units would be constructed compared to buildout under the proposed HEU, which constitute the effect of not rezoning the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts. As noted above in Alternative 2, the number of additional units in the R-1 district remains the same (770), whether as a result of rezoning or through utilization of SB 9 in a case where no rezoning would occur.

Accordingly, the 770 units attributed to the R-1 district are not removed in the analysis of this Alternative. This alternative would meet all of the project objectives, but to a lesser degree than the proposed project, as it includes fewer units.

6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
There would be less overall development in the city under Alternative 3 than there would be under the proposed HEU. Still, as with development under the proposed HEU, most development would occur in Transit Priority Areas and no significant aesthetic impacts would occur. Since less development would occur, there would be fewer possibilities for development to adversely affect scenic vistas. Impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant, the same as under the proposed HEU and slightly reduced in comparison. Similar to the proposed project, development under the Alternative 3 would be required to comply with the City’s development standards and requirements under the BMC that govern aesthetics, as well as policies within the City’s Urban Design and Preservation Element. Overall, aesthetics impacts under the Alternative 3 would be less than significant, the same as under the proposed HEU, and slightly reduced in comparison. b. Air Quality
Alternative 3 would involve reduced buildout in the City compared to the proposed HEU, resulting in incrementally fewer vehicle trips and mobile emissions than would the proposed HEU. Nonetheless, development under existing plans and regulations would not conflict with the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan to reduce GHG emissions or regional planning efforts to reduce VMT and meet air quality standards. Therefore, this alternative would have a less than significant impact related to consistency with air quality plans, the same as under the proposed HEU.

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

6-10
Because of the reduced overall buildout, this alternative could involve less construction activity in the city and less overall emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction. Nonetheless, future development under this alternative would be required to adhere to the City’s standard condition of approval to reduce construction emissions and comply with BAAQMD’s construction BMPs in accordance with Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Impacts associated with construction would be slightly increased compared to those under the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The assumed reduction in buildout under this alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips and asso
ciated mobile emissions relative to the proposed HEU. Therefore, similar to the proposed HEU, operational emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. This impact would remain less than significant.

Due to the reduction in construction emissions, this alternative also would result in lower overall
emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) during construction. Nonetheless, construction of individual projects lasting longer than two months or placed within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Therefore, construction impacts from TAC emissions would be potentially significant and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would be required to reduce construction related impacts to a less than significant level. Like the proposed HEU, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Similar to the proposed HEU, this alternative would not include uses that generate substantial odorous emissions.

Therefore, the impacts related to odors would remain less than significant. c. Biological Resources
There would be less overall development in the city under Alternative 3 than there would be under the proposed HEU. As with development under the proposed HEU, development would occur within the city which is largely urbanized and lacking significant biological resources. Overall, biological resources impacts under Alternative 3 would be slightly reduced compared to those than those under the proposed HEU and would remain less than significant. d. Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, there are various buildings within the city that may qualify as historic structures. Under Alternative 3, there would be less overall development than under the proposed HEU; however, it is still possible that historic structures could be impacted by this development. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project and mitigation measures CR-1 and CR-2 to reduce impacts would be required.

Nonetheless, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Development under this alternative could disturb unrecorded archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources, similar to the proposed HEU. However, with adherence to existing regulations regarding the discovery of human remains and compliance with City of Berkeley standard conditions of approval, these impacts would remain less than significant, the same as under the proposed HEU, and would be slightly reduced.
e. Energy
Under Alternative 3, fewer total residential units would be developed, which would result in an incremental reduction in energy usage compared to the proposed project. Fewer residential units would decrease electricity and natural gas consumption compared to the proposed HEU, and fewer

Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-11
residents would decrease consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel compared to proposed HEU.

Overall, energy impacts under Alternative 3 would be reduced compared to those under the proposed HEU and impacts would remain less than significant. f. Geology and Soils
Although Alternative 3 would result in a reduced buildout compared to the proposed HEU, development could still potentially be subject to seismically-induced ground shaking and other seismic hazards, including liquefaction, landslides, unstable soils, soil erosion, and expansive soils.

However, development under Alternative 3 would be required to comply with policies and requirements within the California Building Code, the BMC, Berkeley General Plan, and the NPDES permit. Impacts would remain less than significant.

While the Alternative 3 would result in less development than the proposed HEU, ground disturbing construction activities in geologic units assigned a high or undetermined paleontological sensitivity could have the potential to significantly impact paleontological resources, similar to the proposed HEU. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would still be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. However, it is likely that due to the reduced development under this alternative that fewer unidentified paleontological resources would be impacted than under the proposed HEU, making the potential impact less severe than the proposed HEU. g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 3, fewer total residential units would be developed, which would result in a smaller anticipated population increase and less construction-related and operational emissions in comparison to buildout under the proposed HEU. This alternative would result in lower GHG emissions than the proposed HEU as it would result in less development. However, this alternative would also not increase the number of residential units in Priority Development Areas or along transit corridors to the same extent as under the proposed HEU, and therefore would not reduce driving distances or encourage the use of transit as much as development under the proposed HEU.

Nonetheless, this alternative would not conflict with plans or policies to reduce GHG emissions impacts and therefore those impacts would be less than significant, the same as under the proposed HEU.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 3 would result in less development than the proposed HEU; however, the development allowed under this alternative could still occur within 0.25 mile of a school and could result in the release of hazardous materials. Just as with the proposed HEU, compliance with regional and federal regulations and compliance with policies within the Berkeley General Plan Safety Element and Environmental Management Element, as well as the Hazardous Materials Business Plan and the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan laid out by Berkeley and Alameda County would minimize the risk of releases and exposure to these materials. Impacts would be slightly reduced and would remain less than significant.

As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there are multiple locations within Berkeley that are designated as hazardous materials sites. While Alternative 3 would result in less development in certain areas, it could still occur on these sites. Future development would be subject to the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval and the City’s Toxics Management Division would evaluate projects to determine if Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are required to characterize potential contamination and develop a soil and groundwater management

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

6-12
plan to address hazards during construction and operation. Therefore, impacts would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed HEU since there would be reduced development under this Alternative and impacts would remain less than significant. i. Hydrology and Water Quality
There would be less overall development in the city under Alternative 3 than there would be under the proposed HEU, resulting in less construction activities that could release materials and degrade water quality and less discharge to storm drains that could contaminate and affect downstream waters. Similar to the proposed HEU, development under Alternative 3 would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and would not substantially alter the drainage pattern on sites and increase surface runoff. Development would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, NPDES MS4 General Permit, Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, the BMC, and the City’s General Plan policies, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed HEU due to reduced development and would remain less than significant.
j. Land Use and Planning
Alternative 3 would involve continuing a pattern of development consistent with existing land use controls and area plans. Alternative 3 would not physically divide an established community and would not conflict with Plan Bay Area 2050, the Berkeley General Plan, or the BMC. Impacts would be less than significant and the same as those of the proposed HEU. k. Noise
Alternative 3 would result in less development than the proposed HEU; however, this alternative would still generate construction and operational noise. Although development would be required to comply with daytime construction hours as set forth in the BMC and implement the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for construction noise, the type of construction equipment, proximity of sensitive receptors to the site, and overall duration of construction are still unknown.

Therefore, as with the proposed HEU, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, although slightly reduced in comparison with the proposed HEU.

Although operational noise associated with Alternative 3 would still be regulated by respective standards in the BMC, such noise sources would occur to a lesser degree than under the proposed HEU. Nonetheless, on-site operational noise would remain typical of the urban environment and off-site traffic noise associated with development would not result in a perceptible increase in noise levels. Furthermore, while Alternative 3 would subject less development to overhead flight patterns from airport, all development would be required to comply with State and local standards to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. Impacts would remain less than significant.

Development under Alternative 3 could generate vibration exceeding thresholds for building damage, particularly during construction, similar to the proposed HEU. Future discretionary projects in Berkeley, when proposed, would be required to implement the City’s Standard Condition of Approval to control vibration. With implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval, significant vibration impacts would not occur. Furthermore, as with the proposed HEU, it is not anticipated that operation of development under Alternative 3 would involve activities that would result in substantial vibration levels, such as use of heavy equipment and impacts would remain less than significant.

Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-13
l. Population and Housing
Alternative 3 would result approximately 975 fewer residential units and therefore would result in a smaller population increase than the proposed HEU. Assuming 2.5 persons per unit, the reduction of 975 fewer units than under the proposed HEU would reduce population growth by 2,438 people compared to the proposed HEU. Overall population growth would be approximately 45,005 bringing the city’s population to 169,568. Similar to the proposed HEU, this would be consistent with State requirements for the RHNA and would be within the growth forecasts for Northwest Alameda County in Plan Bay Area 2050. Alternative 3 would not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure that could indirectly lead to population growth. Impacts would be less than significant and would remain less than significant.
m. Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 3 would result in fewer residential units than the proposed HEU. Therefore, the increase in demand on public services, including police protection, fire protection, schools, and parks would be less than that of the proposed HEU. As with the proposed project, services would be adequate to service future demand; impacts would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed HEU and would remain less than significant.
n. Transportation
VMT per capita under Alternative 3 would be higher than under the proposed HEU, since it would not increase the number of residential units and along the San Pablo Avenue transit corridor to the same extent as under the proposed HEU, and therefore would not reduce driving distances or encourage the use of transit as much as development under the proposed HEU. Therefore, impacts to transportation would be greater than those of the proposed HEU. Nonetheless, it is anticipated that impacts would remain less than significant.
o. Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 3, fewer residential units would be constructed, which would result in a reduced likelihood of impacting tribal cultural resources. Future development would be required to comply with requirements of AB 52 and SB 18, as well as City regulations governing protection of tribal cultural resources and archaeological resources, and Mitigation Measure TCR-1. Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed HEU, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. p. Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative 3, fewer residential units would be constructed and therefore the demand on utilities would be reduced compared to the proposed HEU. This includes a reduction in water supply requirements, wastewater generation, electricity use, solid waste generation, and telecommunications. Impacts would be less than significant and reduced compared to those of the proposed HEU.
q. Wildfire
Alternative 3 may result in fewer residential units being constructed in the City’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). Therefore, impacts related to wildfire would be reduced when compared to the HEU. Nonetheless, with SB 9 (see explanation below under Alternative 2),

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

6-14
development could still occur in the hillside areas such that the unavoidably significant wildfire impacts would not be avoided.

6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table 6-2 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or similar to that of the proposed HEU for each of the issue areas studied.

Alternative 1 (No Project) assumes continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element. Alternative 1 also assumes that the City’s existing plan and policies would continue to accommodate development in accordance with existing land use designations. This alternative would result in less impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire due to the decrease in residential units developed. However, impacts relating to transportation would be greater than under the Project as this alternative would not prioritize development in Priority Development Areas or near transit corridors, and therefore would not decrease VMT since fewer residents would be in proximity to transit, jobs, and services. In addition, this alternative would not eliminate the unavoidably significant impacts related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire.

Furthermore, Alternative 1 would not fulfill Project Objective 1 because the continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element would result in the development of fewer residential units and therefore, would not accommodate employment, housing, and population growth projections forecasted through the planning horizon year of 2031 to the same extent as under the proposed HEU. In addition, Alternative 1 would not fulfill Project Objectives 2 and 3 because continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element would not address the need for additional affordable housing options throughout Berkeley in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Alternative 2 (No Rezone in the Hillside Overlay) would include the same development as the proposed HEU; therefore, impacts would be equal to that of the proposed HEU. Alternative 2 would continue to fulfill Project Objectives as it would be able to accommodate employment, housing, and population growth projections forecasted through the planning horizon year of 2031; increase affordable housing options throughout the city; and place housing in proximity to transit, jobs, services, and community benefits.

Alternative 3, No Middle Housing Rezoning, includes approximately 975 fewer units than the buildout included in the analysis of the proposed project. This alternative would result in less impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems and wildfire due to the decrease in residential units developed. However, impacts relating to transportation would be greater than under the proposed HEU as this alternative would not prioritize development near in Transit Priority Areas or major transit corridors, and therefore would not decrease VMT since fewer residents would be in proximity to transit, jobs, and services. Also, as the alternative makes no changes to the proposed project within the City’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), wildfire impacts would be the same as under the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would not eliminate the unavoidably significant impacts related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire.