Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, January 18, 2023 (part 7 of 13)

Page 635 ends

• This is a pretty low-key intervention of four
units. Development like this throughout this
neighborhood could maintain the general
scale of buildings and overall experience of the
neighborhood, while easily doubling the number
of housing opportunities.
• Just the sort of yuppie buildings that are
driving out diversity from historically diverse
neighborhoods; the type of cars in the drive
ways say it all.
• We need to increase density in Berkeley in
general. These units are HUGE! I would like to
see twice as many in a space this size. Otherwise,
everything about this development is lovely.
• Building should be the style as existing
community.
• Interesting how front units have varied design
on similar floor plan (though back units kind
of boring in design). Another good model for
moving beyond single family residential zoning.
• Nicely balanced.
• A well-done project. I like these very much. I call
houses on a lot like these “dualies”. I like that
we’re seeing more and more of them. I feel it’s
a great use of our limited land. The architectural
styles and the finishes here are very good.
• Two different styles which don’t complement
one another. Create a very dissonant effect since
they are the same size, have a single front fence,
strong horizontals and very similar colors.

8. 1461-1467 FIFTH STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• Great site lanscaping in limited area, good street
trees
• Conformity with transitional industrial-
residential area. Though taller than confronting
properties, it works because the nearest
residential units are across the street.
• Ideal infill for a formerly industrial neighborhood
with less concern about casting shadows on
existing residential SF neighbors.
• This is an eclectic neighborhood, so the fact
that these homes introduce a new form is in
fact “compatible.” The materials relate more to
the industrial building next store, and less to
the other residential buildings on the block, but
that’s fine. This scale is more “compatible” to the
future of Berkeley.
• This only fits the industrial aspects of
neighborhood because of the faux-warehouse
look cladding. -Distance from front sidewalk is
good -Permeable pavement is good
• nod to quonset huts
• NOTHING! This is an ugly lazy corrugated tin
eyesore!! Yuck!
• Haha, oh yes, this building. The technicolor silos.

I’m actually surprised to learn this was built in
2015 - looks more like 1997 to me. Anyway, this
design is awkward. The spacing between the
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 61 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1461-1467 Fifth St.7908-914 Cedar St.6
4 DETACHED UNITS ON 1 LOT
Zoning MUR Mixed-Use Residential
Units 4
Year 2015
Height 3 stories, 33’
FAR 1.29
Density 34 units per acre
Coverage 43%
4 DETACHED UNITS ON 2 LOTS
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 4 total, 2 per lot
Year 2020
Height 2-stories, 25’3”
FAR 0.69
Density 16 units per acre
Coverage 39%
195

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 632 of 1385 ends

Page 636 ends

still peaceful location.
• Very sympathetic predictors of rising seas.
“Dormitory” housing - recreate elsewhere.

No relation to transitorientation meaning all
residents drive.
• Using color stripes to break up a monolithic
facade isn’t effective.
• Fits in with other buildings on that block. One
block down though are smaller Victorians so
shouldn’t be there.
• You can’t divorce the discussion of industrial
materials and stark forms like these from the
massing, open space, etc.; these tall buildings
would be inappropriate towering over long-time
single-family yards a few blocks east, but for this
corner, in this block, in this neighborhood, they
are channeling both residential and industrial
expression, so work well. This neighborhood
offers more opportunities for this sort of
innovation than others do.
• I hope people can adjust their eyes to this
density quickly, because it really is the absolute
minimum we should be thinking about.
• What was the design review commission
thinking
• Not enough outdoor-yard space. Would be too
tall and imposing on similar residential blocks
with 1-2 story homes but seems to work here.

Again, could probably fit more units in buildings
of this size.
• It doesn’t fit with existing community
• Unattractive, stands out as ugly
• I felt the third floor makes it seem a bit high
but perhaps the neighborhood is moving that
way. A shame that the front is so much taken
with parking. I know it is in a kind of industrial
district and trying to be hip but I don’t care for
the corrugated metal siding.
• More housing supply is the goal; any design
that meets existing code (primarily life/safety/
sustainability vs aesthetic) is fine; Berkeley
aesthetic is eclectic
• I’ve liked these since there were built. Unique
look, single-family homes without the land
waste. I like the finishes. As I was studying the
site, an occupant came out on the balcony. I ask
how he liked living there and he said he loved it,
buildings seems incoherent, and they need more
landscaping to really respect the surroundings.

But the scale and facade materials are fine,
given the semi-industrial character of the
neighborhood.s.

2. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Too close together.
• Design. I know it’s a matter of taste... Also,
windows for the people who live there.
• At three stories, these new developments in this
neighborhood (this is one of three) change the
area and I question whether this substantial
change is intentional. There is limited outdoor
space and the building creates excessive shade.

To me is not an improvement.
• Stylistically these don’t intend to be compatible;
the “trees” out front are a joke. Looks like we are
putting people in tire shops
• Needs landscaping (native plants)
• Too many driveway cuts across sidewalk.
-Barely any private yard space. -Massing too
monolithic. Even though it is the same height
as 1446 Fifth St., this one *feels* taller because
there is no break in the facade. -For three
stories, this seems substantially taller than the
three story townhouses on tenth (part of Jones
development).
• -Height with no stepback/stepdown overpowers
neighborhood
• A dramatic design that overwhelmed the
neighborhood. It should have been set back or
upper story stepped back to take away from
thence of them towering over the sidewalk and
neighborhood. Perhaps one less unit would
reduced the enormous impact this development
has.
• Great use of space. Great design, but could use
more useable outdoor space (larger balconies).
• Driveways are too small and difficult to use.
• Everything! This belongs in Emeryville!

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• As long as shorter commercial building is on
North, setback is maybe okay. First floor units
looked cramped and dreary. Offset somewhat by
196
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 633 of 1385 ends

Page 637 ends

and the neighborhood.
• Crazy architecture (tho I like it) which doesn’t
fit character of neighborhood (except the other
new building across the street). Much taller than
original homes on block. No backyard, small
central front yard. Clever off-street parking
(angled so as not to overlap sidewalk).

9. 1444-1446 FIFTH STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• Design, especially the street facades, is better
than the previous example.
• The stepbacks and balconies help. The large
mass is broken by the building form, which is
appreciated.
• Same comments as previous around separation
from nearest residential properties. Units
under construction to the north are the
same developer’s so residents can anticipate
additional buildings with similar height next
door.
• Lovely, rich materials.
• Nice aesthetics, landscaping, setback
• Great that driveways are shared, and provide
setbacks from neighboring property line; fewer
driveway cuts across sidewalk, and parked cars/
garage doors are hidden from sidewalk -Good
broken up facade, so it doesn’t feel overwhelming.
-Front greenspace along sidewalk looks small,
but because it is well landscaped, it doesn’t
feel insufficient -driveways look like they could
double as gathering spaces for residents.
• Nod to industrial quonset huts (and neighboring
buildings)
• NOTHING!
• Better than the last one. Acknowledges that it’s
in a mostly residential area, with some industrial
hints.

2. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• This type of building signifies a new
neighborhood in the making
• Trees used too close to property lines and
buildings, rooftop and balconies intrusive to
neighbors, inaccessible
• At three stories, these new developments in this
neighborhood (this is one of three) change the
area and I question whether this substantial
change is intentional. There is no yard.
• Better modulation of the side facades could have
made these less imposing to the SF neighbors.
• Replace the older single family homes on the
block with this level of density, minimum.
• Materials! Cheap faux wood is not a proper
exterior material. Makes the whole thing look
like it came from IKEA
• Better density than #7
• Needs landscaping (native plants)
• Also, there is so little ground (soil) left on these
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 60 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1626 & 1628 10th St.51444-1446 Fifth St.8
2 UNITS ON ONE LOT
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 2
Year 2021
Height 2 stories, 25’
FAR 0.43
Density 17 units per acre
Coverage 39%
8 DETACHED UNITS ON 2 LOTS
Zoning MUR Mixed-Use Residential
Units 8 total, 4 per lot
Year 2021
Height 3 stories, 33’
FAR 1.32
Density 30 units per acre
Coverage 42%
197

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 634 of 1385 ends

Page 638 ends

lots. Better use of semipermeable surfaces would
make this a more earth-friendly development.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Okay for people who only want private/semi
private common space. Otherwise, not enough
open space.
• Wadlund did great on these.
• That “yard” space from sidewalk to building unit
easy to render appealing. This will help - with
7 and 9 - determine the future appearance of
West Berkeley. They do nothing to help with the
greater housing problem. “Neighborhood folk”
are unlikely to be found here.
• Fits well with other buildings on the block.
• Although these are on the edge of being too
imposing to the smaller neighbors, this mixed-
use block needs this sort of infill.
• Yes, please. Build these everywhere. They are
a very nice half step between single family
residential and a multifamily building.
• These are out of scale and have the worst sort of
exterior materials. I don’t mind aluminum, just
not with the wood/faux wood veneer.
• Wrong style
• Same question on height as 1461-67 Fifth. Maybe
it is OK but I still find it higher than the historic
homes. At least the parking is handled better
than 1461-67 Fifth. There is some playfulness
in the design which I also like better here. Not
much garden space but it does achieve fairly
high density.
• Updated/better version of the prior example;
same comment: more housing supply is the goal;
any design that meets existing code (primarily
life/safety/sustainability vs aesthetic) is fine;
Berkeley aesthetic is eclectic
• Beautiful design. Great rooftop space.
• Another new and great project. Architectural
style, finishes, and big windows are a plus. Nice
articulation and different rooflines.
• Too tall, too bulky, too massive, too modern for
neighborhood. (I like the architecture but you
asked about compatibility). No yard, tiny front
strip with plantings.
• Yuck!

9. 802-808, 812 PAGE ST.

Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• Permeable driveway with accessible walking
path
• Conformity with existing transitional residential
industrial boundary, relative separation from
adjoining residential buildings.
• Parking hidden, not in front.
• Yard in front, albeit small, is important for a
residential character and, for the residents, at
least a suggestion of privacy.
• Compatible? No. Progress? Yes! These blocks
are so underutilized. These new houses are an
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 59 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 802-808, 812 Page St.91611 & 1613 10th St.5
4 DETACHED UNITS, 1 OFFICE
Zoning MUR Mixed-Use Residential
Units 4
Year 2017
Height 3 stories, 35’
FAR 1.3
Density 27 units per acre
Coverage 54%
2 UNITS ON ONE LOT
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 2
Year 2007
Height 2 stories, 31’
FAR 0.45
Density 13 units per acre
Coverage 32%
198
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 635 of 1385 ends

Page 639 ends

inspiration toward the rich life we could have
if we actually thought of Berkeley as a 21st
century city rather than a 20th century bedroom
community.
• Unattractive
• I like single driveway for multiple units
• Nod to sawtooth building
• Really like the mix of uses. Would really like to
see a science base business or other commercial
use in the one unit.
• NOTHING!
• Scale is fine for the neighborhood, which is just
filled with weird buildings. They could probably
be improved by being less blocky, and having
more windows and other engagement with the
street.

2. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Accommodation is clearly not the idea here!
• Height is fine, but the design could be improved.

Where’s the creativity? It’d be nice to have a
balance between increased units (good) and
a beautiful place to live and relax. More green
space.
• Site landscaping
• These are just big boxes with parking and are
depressing. They might as well be a huge building
with two more units and parking underneath.

Not well done.
• Side facade modulation and interest is missing.
• Up-zone everything around them.
• Looks like it should be in the modern part of
Copenhagen, not Berkeley
• Needs landscaping (native plants)
• -This only fits industrial parts of neighborhood,
not the residential parts of the neighborhood;
except that the industrial parts aren’t usually
this tall. -Facade is single unbroken plane.

Same problem as 1461 Fifth St. It *feels* taller
because it is one flat surface. -No open space for
residents? Driveway parking area doesn’t look
like an inviting substitute for open space. -Barely
any step back from sidewalk
• This is going from bad to worse. if this is
Berkeley’s vision for the future - corrugated
tin boxes with awful curves and angles - I’m
moving!t.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Appears to need open space other than driveway.
• Alas, this 7 and 8 are representative of a new
brave residential architecture for notables
who choose not to relate to city outdoor life
(backyard, front yard) The well-proportioned
drive/passage has few windows facing it.

Overall, businesslike, closed-off. But not all that
awful. (The atelier, top left!)
• Integration with alley is poor. Don’t like the
courtyard driveway that bisects the buildings.

It’s car-centric and not ped-friendly.
• A huge industrial-looking monster! Blocks
sunshine from neighbors. Who would want to
live next door to oversized shipping containers?
• Design and parking layout is less successful than
1444-46 Fifth.
• More housing supply is the goal; any design
that meets existing code (primarily life/safety/
sustainability vs aesthetic) is fine; Berkeley
aesthetic is eclectic
• Great layout for guest parking.
• Overall, a well-done project. Like the dense use
of the property.
• I guess these go with the semi-industrial nature
of West Berkeley. (They’re nice but bigger &
taller than single family homes in neighborhood.)
No yards, just tiny green spot with plantings in
front. Good 0ff-street parking

10. 870-880 Jones S 10 t., 1500-1504 Seventh St.

Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• Light can penetrate all units as well as adjacent
properties
• These are acceptable.
• Though taller than surrounding buildings,
pitched roof design makes it fit in.
• I want to say the gables are compatible with
199

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 636 of 1385 ends

Page 640 ends

the single-family typology in terms of massing,
but the overall building’s blunt-ness is not
compatible. The questions you’re asking are not
allowing for the nuances of what REALLY make
buildings work or not.
• These are compatible in many ways, which is
why I checked the boxes. But are they good? No.

The are boring and ugly. The facades are so flat
despite the breaks in roofline and massing, and
the window proportions are mismatched and
senseless. Is bad architecture “compatible?” In
this case, yes. Is that good? No.
• Unattractive
• Livable scale -Nice private yard space for
residents -Good setbacks on all sides -Peaked
roof matches older neighborhood buildings.
• Not much to like.
• Yard space is minimal - little backyards, front bit
of lawn and plantings..

2. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Less driveway, more green space.
• Needs street trees
• This building is clearly low income housing and
making that designation so apparent does not
seem necessary or dignified for the residents.

Some landscaping and stepbacks would make
this building more appealing.
• Don’t like parking spaces in front.
• These are blunt, the big swath of parking is ugly,
and the screen walls create a brutal feel.
• That big wide driveway is ghastly. I don’t think
that you should force parking to the rear of
Berkeley’s small residential lots because long
driveways waste so much space, and backyards
should be for people, not cars, however I do
object to this swath of concrete.
• Could be taller, larger units
• Needs landscaping (native plants)
• Lots of Driveway cuts across sidewalk
• More density
• Set too far back from street. Doesn’t use lot
space well. Grass in front of structures is a waste
of space.
• Just build an apartment building instead of these.

The residents don’t benefit from something that
looks like a house but doesn’t function like one,
and neither do the neighbors. Build an apartment
building, with three stories and a flat roof, just a
tiny bit taller than these, with better materials
and a more creative design, and better, more
• hidden parking management. that will yield
more housing, with a more coherent and honest
design.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Severe appearance will be mitigated by that
one tree’s growth. The parking apron could be
permeably paved, and the trash/”yard” space re-
designed.
• These are good example of having open space
available.
• All over the country, houses sit empty because
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 58 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1744 -1756 10th St .4870-880 Jones St., 1500-1504 Seventh St.10 5 UNITS IN TWO BUILDINGS
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 5
Year 1943
Height 2 stories
FAR 0.67
Density 52 units per acre
Coverage 53%
5 ATTACHED TOWNHOMES
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 5
Year 1989
Height 2 stories
FAR 0.48
Density 18 units per acre
Coverage 28%
200
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 637 of 1385 ends

Page 641 ends

they are bought in large part by hedge funds and
the very wealthy while the pretense continues
that this new housing will benefit anyone except
the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area,
not only house by house. Did you know a great
percentage of new housing is bought by hedge
fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over
50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins:
https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-
rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments
on the first page.
• These questions, throughout both surveys, are
missing the point. Why ask about “compatibility”?
That’s not a useful gauge of what the future of
Berkeley should be; most people will interpret
that to mean matching, and that’s not useful in
thinking about the future cityscape of Berkeley.

Think about it: A building that’s larger than its
neighbors, and different than its neighborhood
may be “appropriate” in the immediate context
of architectural “fit” and our high demand
for more housing, and not be “compatible” /
“similar” to what’s there now. I wish this survey
had more of a preamble to get people in the
right frame of mind. As it is, I don’t think the
checkbox selections will be meaningful. I also
REALLY wish you’d asked people, once they’re
done with reviewing all the building examples,
to step back and think about their responses and
impressions in the aggregate, and express their
thoughts on each of the seven categories you’re
asking them to box each project into. In my many
years of creating surveys and questionnaires,
those opportunities for big-picture feedback are
often the most valuable part of a survey like this.
• Placement is poor – despite large setbacks,
it doesn’t transition smoothly from street to
building. Buildings feel disconnected.
• This building blends better in the community
then newer buildings
• By stepping back the upper floor 4 feet or so, a
balcony could have provided some additional
outdoor space on the 2nd floor. Residents cold
then “oversee” their neighborhood, thus adding
to the security and visual enjoyment of the street.
• These scattered site public housing
developments are holding up fairly well
with proper maintenance and the sort of
generic traditional design goes well with the
neighborhood. As always parking is difficult to
deal with but at least there is some yard space.
• Very little land available for residential;
more density per parcel = more sustainable
development
• These look cheap and uninteresting.
• A very uninspiring project. Front are all about
parking cars. Wasted lot use. Large, unused
yards, poor design, and cheap finishes. One of
the poorest projects on the tour.
• Simple, nice design. Only 2 stories but with the
peaks appear taller and a little out of sync with
surrounding single story homes.

11. 1508 10th St.

Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• I didn’t get this one completed on walk. I do think
these convivial shared paths can be wonderful -
especially if they’re not just driveways. Please
see below.
• These fit in the neighborhood but they seem like
a missed opportunity for improving the block.
• Like that parking is hidden, not in front.
• 1. Scale on the street, window detail, and
materials create a low-impact facade. 2. Six units
on a smaller lot is great, but these are clearly
small units, so not a great reference point. 3. Yes,
they are “compatible” with the neighbors, but
twice the unit count, as a 2-story building, could
be just as “compatible”.
• This complex is perfectly compatible, but is that
good? I vote for change. Not radical change, but a
steady, meaningful increase in density. It’s a city.
• Stylistically fits into existing neighborhood.
• Aesthetics really fit in with this neighborhood
• Nice shared driveway that feels like a courtyard
for gathering space. -Noticed that unit is easily
converted to ADA accessible with ramp -Nice
garden spaces
• They did it right! Low visual impact, fairly earth
friendly landscaping and hardscaping.
201

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 638 of 1385 ends

Page 642 ends

• Low, single story units like original homes in
neighborhood.
• This grouping invites neighborly interaction..

2. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• These older ‘garden court’ complexes add
character to our neighborhoods. They could
certainly be more than one story, say, a mix of
one, two and three story units.
• Trees
• I would like to see these buildings with some
two story areas- taller would be better! That
would allow for more open space rather than
just a driveway down the middle.
• Solid walls are uninviting and a security concern.
• Why do we want to increase compatibility with
a low density boring neighborhood? We need to
let the pattern change. Not radically, but steadily.
• If a remodel were to be done, these could all be
2-story and increase density quite a bit.
• None
• Needs landscaping (native plants)
• More density/height
• Teensiest of ‘yards’.
• I love these, and there are several examples
all over Berkeley, but they’re just too short.

Creating density on scarce land without height
by covering the whole lot is the worst best
option. The overall layout is charming though.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• This is a very cute example, but not something
that translates to building today.
• The overall relation to the west side of 10th
and nearby streets is sound. A replacement
structure(s) wouldn’t hurt (m)any more than
this very cozy attractive set of cottages. It is
dominated by an anachronistic driveway, useful
also as a play area. All over the country, houses
sit empty because they are bought in large part
by hedge funds and the very wealthy while
the pretense continues that this new housing
will benefit anyone except the super wealthy.

Also, consider whole area, not only house by
house. Did you know a great percentage of new
housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not
individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz’s
book and Chuck Collins: https://inequality.org/
great-divide/tax-the-rich-global-wealth-report/
See my comments on the first page.
• While it fits that side of the street, the Jones St
development overwhelms this.
• Why do you want to know how something
that’s already matching exactly the pattern of
a neighborhood, could be changed to “improve
compatibility”? I don’t see what that can teach
us in tis exercise about where to go. I think a lot
of people would agree that doubling the height
of these buildings would be just as compatible.

Many of these 7 aspects would be better asked
as a sliding scale, like whether a project should
be less dense, is just right, or should be more
dense. Or have more or less yard space, or be
taller or shorter.
• This is what should be built
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 57 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1508 10th St.111080 Delaware St.3
6 UNIT COTTAGE COURT
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 6
Year 1926
Height 1 story
FAR 0.37
Density 30 units per acre
Coverage 46%
MIXED-USE 5+
Zoning C-W W. Berkeley Commercial
Units 51 (4 live/work)
Year 2012
Height 4 stories, 49’
FAR 2.15
Density 108 units per acre
Coverage 83%
202
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 639 of 1385 ends

Page 643 ends

• Should be updated to 2-story units.
• A OK example of the cottage compound though
the parking drive seems non-functional
compared to 1810-16 10th
• These were great for their day and add to the
diversity of housing types.
• Very indicative of the time built. Charming
cottage look. For today’s needs, this is too
low in density. But adds to the charm of the
neighborhood.

12. 1080 12 Jones St. - Along San Pablo Ave.

Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• Being along a busy corridor makes this feel
compatible. It’s got some character to the design.

Perhaps not all of the first floor needs to be
retail? First floor units are great for people who
need wheelchair or other accessibility.
• This isn’t particularly compatible today, but I
hope it will be compatible with where we are
headed. It’s certainly an appropriate site for this
scale of development.
• The varied facade is the buildings only redeeming
quality
• Unattractive
• Good break up of facade into multiple surfaces
• I go by this building all the time. It’s great. San
Pablo can accommodate any height, and of
course the trees humanize the whole thing. We
don’t need to force developers to use 19 different
facade materials, but it’s fine here.

2. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Again, creating open space, green space, a
small plaza on the street front would be VERY
welcome. Look at these kinds of complexes in
other countries -- South America, Europe, some
places in Asian countries.
• Trees, privacy for western neighbors, direction
of traffic from building to San Pablo v increased
neighborhood traffic
• The fifth story seems too big for the street. That’s
a big jump and there is nothing nearby over four
stories. Too tall.
• Step backs on the 10th side were as thoughtful as
possible to maintain feasibility but nevertheless
somewhat dwarf the 1- and 2-story buildings
across the street.
• Height on the backside is too much. Should have
more of a stepback to blend in with the part on
10th st and with the houses across the street. It
effectively makes the lower height part on the
10th St. seem taller when viewed from across
the street. the 1080 Delaware St building does
it much better.
• Could be taller along San Pablo
• Why do we still have little residences on San
Pablo Ave? If we want this new development
to be compatible, then make sure that the
zoning encourages redevelopment of those
underutilized parcels.

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 56 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1810-1816 10th St.21080 Jones St. - Along San Pablo Ave.12 4 UNITS IN ONE BUILDING
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 4
Year 1943
Height 2 stories
FAR 0.26
Density 19 units per acre
Coverage 19%
MIXED-USE 5+
Zoning C-W W. Berkeley Commercial
Units 170 (16 BMR)
Year 2020
Height 5 stories, 60’6”
FAR 3.55
Density 99 units per acre
Coverage 70%
203

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 640 of 1385 ends

Page 644 ends

• OMG: no more wood/faux wood veneer on
buildings.
• We need to fill that commercial space when
possible!
• Needs landscaping (native plants)
• Really dislike driveway cut across sidewalk on
San Pablo. Not sure why the driveway on Jones
was insufficient. -EMPTY, UNENGAGING STORE
FRONTS on San Pablo AGAIN. -Dislike the
amount of overhang over sidewalk. Some is ok,
this is too much
• Do not put garage entrances on San Pablo
Avenue! This hinders the development of future
bike and bus lanes.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Hard to see some from street. From Delaware,
house next door has adequate setback that
improves the west setback on 1080 Jones -
otherwise it might be too small. Seems to need
open space.
• Those sapling trees will eventually mask much
of the brutal effect. This is after all a major
housing addition. The really sad part of this and
TOC residential construction in general is the
utter gloominess of the ground floor’s (empty)
tenancies. The San Pablo sidewalk width is very
considerate for a major street’s foot traffic!
• All over the country, houses sit empty because
they are bought in large part by hedge funds and
the very wealthy while the pretense continues
that this new housing will benefit anyone except
the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area,
not only house by house. Did you know a great
percentage of new housing is bought by hedge
fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over
50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins:
https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-
rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments
on the first page.
• Shows the continuing challenge of maintaining
conformity with 2 very different zoning districts
(C-W and R1A in this case).
• 1. Planter boxes are a definite plus for the
pedestrian experience. 2. Overall building is
okay-ish, but far from imaginative. With the
exception of the odd triangular terraces it’s yet
another piling up of Lego blocks.
• Yet another IKEA box for yuppies. thanks
berkeley city council
• Wrong style and too high.
• I really notice how much this building shades
San Pablo Avenue sidewalk FROM ACROSS THE
STREET. If we are building up San Pablo Avenue
to this height, please make a plan for improved
street lighting starting at 3pm.
• A solid wall on San Pablo Avenue that casts a
huge shadow. Stepping back from San Pablo, like
the other side of the development would have
made it less Manhattanesque.
• It steps down to the 10th St side and goes
to townhome style to interface with the
neighborhood there but unfortunately on the
Cedar Street side it looms menacingly over its
neighbors. Less successful than 1080 Delaware.
• Appropriate for location
• With the exception of the garage entrance on
SPA, this is a great example of what I would like
to see on transit rich corridors.
• Rather plain and uninspired architecture.

Overall, makes sense as it’s right along San Pablo
Av. Like the large windows and active ground
floor space.
• What can I say, it’s an apartment house. But
it’s on a commercial corridor so altho huge for
Berkeley (by the old standards), it’s ok.

13.1080 Jones St. - T 12 ownhomes Along 10th St.

Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• This building is appealing at street level and
the massing works well by increasing density
without challenging the existing character of the
neighborhood.
• It’s compatible with the future of Berkeley.

You can’t fault this building for expressing new
conditions, while the parcels around it reflect
the conditions of 60 years ago.
• The varied facade again is better than a flat
plane, but that is the only redeeming quality
204
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 641 of 1385 ends

Page 645 ends

• Good placement of driveways
• Unattractive
• Great stepping down from massive San Pablo
side to 10th St. side. -This three stories in front
feels far lower than the other three story building
in this tour near/on fifth. Maybe it is? If it is much
lower than the other three story buildings, could
we encourage more three stories at this height?
Maybe relate lot coverage to story height (like
average roof height?) -Despite many driveway
cuts across sidewalk, these have been arranged
to feel less obtrusive across sidewalk. -
• I love the change in height from SPA to 10th
Street.
• Overall, well done. I like how the building steps
down here, toward the neighborhood. I like the
townhouse look to these eastern units. I like how
the project is tied together on the northern side
with the community space and parking entrance.
• Nice metal-work balconies but small and not
private.
• Yes, very well done. The stepbacks in particular
enable high density while keeping everything at
a human scale for the neighborhood. As do the
individual parking/entrance allotments. Every
“house” is distinguishable by its facade design,
without trying to pretend that these are any
kind of traditional row house. Some neighboring
houses are one story, but there are two and
three story buildings in every direction within
one or two lots.

2. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Better design
• These same building heights could be executed
in a gentler, more sensitive way, that would fit
with the SF residential neighborhood they are
confronting. The harsh boxes, despite being
“broken up”, are harsh.
• Needs landscaping (native plants)
• Looks a little sparse in landscaping and trees.
• Massive and massively long (almost entire
block); bigger and taller than older buildings
in neighborhood. Ugly blank wall (garage) and
small front yards on Jones..

3. Would you like to provide any additional
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 55 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1080 Jones St. - Townhomes Along 10th St.121 1911 Ninth St. (Same development
information as table on pg. 14)
3 DETACHED UNITS ON A LOT
Zoning R-3 Multiple-Family
Units 3
Year 2014
Height 3 stories, 34’11”
FAR 0.95
Density 20 units per acre
Coverage 39%
explanation or feedback?
• A crowded row as compared to structures on the
west side of the street. No “relief” sidewalk area
trees will help shield the brutal effect.
• All over the country, houses sit empty because
they are bought in large part by hedge funds and
the very wealthy while the pretense continues
that this new housing will benefit anyone except
the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area,
not only house by house. Did you know a great
percentage of new housing is bought by hedge
fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over
50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins:
https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-
rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments
on the first page.
• See comment for the San Pablo side of building
• Dwarfs buildings across the street.
205

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 642 of 1385 ends

Page 646 ends

• I know that you’re trying to control the
responses here to solicit information on your
first phase of “massing” work, but the success
of any given massing is SO tied up with the
materials, details, colors, and other factors, that
these check-box responses really can’t provide
useful, dimensional, contextual feedback.
• Another Ikea box for yuppies.
• The style need to keep with existing homes in
the community.
• Bunching the driveways/parking is helpful.

Otherwise see comment on previous part of
number 12
• Good use of space
• This is a beautifully executed project. I love how
most of the block was redeveloped to create
more housing.
• A well-done project, overall.
• Since this is the end, I’d like to add a couple of
additional comments: For a city that claims to
be environmentally progressive, none of the
new buildings have enough actual green stuff,
as in trees and other plants. And if the standard
is compatibility, none of the new structures are
compatible with the original 1 and 2 story homes
in West Berkeley. Thank you for this opportunity
to give input.
206
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 643 of 1385 ends

Page 647 ends

F5.3 RENTER SURVEY

OVERVIEW
In order to collect feedback directly from renters, a flyer was handed out to people, requesting they fill out a four minute survey on renting in Berkeley. The survey received 195 views and 59 individuals filled out the survey. The results are included below.
5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach
https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 2/14 What neighborhood of Berkeley do you live in?
59 South Berkeley
16 resp. 27.1%
Central Berkeley
10 resp. 16.9%
Southside
9 resp. 15.3%
North Berkeley
7 resp. 11.9%
Southwest Berkeley
7 resp. 11.9%
Northside
3 resp. 5.1%
4th Street
1 resp. 1.7%
Claremont
1 resp. 1.7%
Elmwood District
1 resp. 1.7%
Lorin
1 resp. 1.7%
University of California Berkeley
1 resp. 1.7%
out of 60 answered
5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach
https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 3/14 Upper North Berkeley
1 resp. 1.7%
Westbrae
1 resp. 1.7%
Berkeley Hills
0 resp. 0%
Berkeley Marina
0 resp. 0%
Cragmont
0 resp. 0%
Gilman
0 resp. 0%
I don't live in Berkeley
0 resp. 0%
Le Conte
0 resp. 0%
Live Oak
0 resp. 0%
Northbrae
0 resp. 0%
Northwest Berkeley
0 resp. 0%
Panoramic Hill
0 resp. 0%
Terrace View
0 resp. 0%
Figure F-26 Renter Survey Results
207

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 644 of 1385 ends

Page 648 ends

5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach
https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 5/14 What are the top 3 strategies that the City should consider or maintain to protect tenants and prevent displacement? 59 Maintain a�ordable housing with rent control
39 resp. 66.1%
Increase resources for extremely low-income households
30 resp. 50.8%
Encourage a variety of housing types
26 resp. 44.1%
Prioritize support to existing and past Berkeley residents 21 resp. 35.6%
Expand a�ordable housing vouchers
17 resp. 28.8%
Increase resources for moderate-income households
15 resp. 25.4%
Increase resources to support first-time homebuyers
11 resp. 18.6%
Create a�ordable housing opportunities for artists
7 resp. 11.9%
Other
11 resp. 18.6%
Upzone neighborhoods across the city
out of 60 answeredOther:
• Upzone neighborhoods across the city
• Focus on creating more rental units at all levels
of income. Encourage new construction
• 1. Increase funding for Section 8 Vouchers and

2. Include resources for low income renters and
home buyers
• Build more transit oriented multifamily housing
• More affordable housing
• Streamline approval for market-rate housing
projects
• Returning the land back to natives
• Same as H (affordable housing opportunities for
artists) expanded to local teachers as well
• Encourage the development of more affordable
housing.
• Allow much more housing to be built, and make
approvals quick and predictable with by-right
ministerial review
• Stop flipping w programs such as land trust
208
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 645 of 1385 ends

Page 649 ends

What tenant programs are working well in the
City of Berkeley?
• Berkeley Tenants' Union
• I don't know any
• I have no idea
• Not sure what are available
• None
• Rent Board, HHCS, BHA (mostly)
• "Rent Control
Just Cause eviction law
tenant financial assistance programs"
• I don’t know of any.
• None. The BMR program is a fat mess that’s
constantly abused by the landlord. They made
us live with roaches, tried to charge us $180 for
water(city pays this) and jack our rent up over a
hundred dollars every year.
• I haven't used any. Rent transparency is useful
via the city website.
• I’m not aware of specific tenant programs.
• No idea
• i dont know of any
• rent board
• Rent board
• Shelter Plus Care
• Rent Control
• I'm not sure what this question is asking.

Examples would be nice. Do you mean things
like rent control?
• Shelter + Care
• none
• For me absolutely nothing!
• I’ve lived in and rented in Berkeley for 6 years,
and I can honestly say I have no idea about any
tenant programs besides rent control. I don’t
feel like rent control is succeeding in the goal
of making renting more affordable—there are
just too many people who need to live here and
not enough housing. Perhaps rent control is
preventing abuses like super high and sudden
rent increases? I’m not sure
• Rent control, I guess
• rent control
• Project Base Vouchers
• Berkeley Rent Board - Moni Law
• I don’t know
• Not aware of any
• I appreciate rent control because it allows me to
continue to live here.
• I do not know of any of the tenant programs and
thus cannot comment on their efficacy
• Just Cause Eviction
• I don't know of any, that will help people from
becoming homeless.
• Rent stabilization
• I don't engage with any
• Rent control
• I don't know any of them
• I don’t know what are them
• None that I know of
• I am not sure
• I am unsure
• rent control
• Shelter Plus Care
• Tenants Together, Rent Board (to degree its
understaffing allows it)
• It's difficult for me to express judgments about
specific tenant programs (which were designed
to protect low-income tenants like me), because
I recognize a failure of the overall system.

Ironically, Berkeley's system discourages
investment in and development of affordable
housing >> producing economic conditions that
are leading to the displacement of longstanding
population of renters (people I love). The
situation is becoming tragic.
• Rent control
• Rent control, security deposit interest
• Berkeley Housing Board
• NONE. For example, the City has no enforcement
teeth and refuses to enforce cases of toxic mold,
which drove me out of my rent control department
of 30 years to a place where my rent quadrupled
and where I am starving to death literally. if
I want to know what is happening to support
tenants in the city of Berkeley, I go to the Berkeley
209

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 646 of 1385 ends

Page 650 ends

Tenants Union website. Increasingly the mayor
and the City Council are obviously apathetic
and hostile to the needs and plight of disabled
renters like me who are falling more and more
behind. Berkeley needs a better rent control and
expanded rent control to address the housing
crisis faced by low income folks, homeless folks,
and students. Also, as an immunocompromised
person, when we interact with City of Berkeley
officials, it is mandatory that they wear high-
quality masks. They won’t. The City has no
provision to protect immunocompromised
tenants from landlords who take advantage of
this and terrorize us by refusing to mask up,
by workers, etc. WE NEED PROTECTION AND

ACCOMMODATIONS PUT INTO LAW NOW TO

PROTECT IMMUNOCOMPROMISED TENANTS
LIKE ME.
• Berkeley's Rent Board and it's policies is what
enables us to live in the city we love.
• Rent Stabilization
• Rent protection, but my apartment doesn't
qualify for it.
• The program that makes the landlord do
inspections.
• Berkeley Rent Board, as far as I know.
• rent board, rent control
• Baclt
• I haven't accessed any specific tenant programs
but the snail mail communication has always
been helpful (e.g., notifications about lawful rent
increases). It would be great if you could sign up
for e-communication but I understand that the
letters are tied to the units, not to individuals.
• Hud vouchers, land trust coops, housing first
programs, rent control
• Housing Trust Fund, Housing Retention monies
210
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 647 of 1385 ends

Page 651 ends

5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach
https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 7/14 What are the top 3 strategies that the City should consider to facilitate the construction of a�ordable housing? 59 Policies to promote long-term / permanent a�ordable rental housing 43 resp. 72.9%
Expand resources to preserve existing a�ordable housing 29 resp. 49.2%
Reduce governmental barriers to residential construction 28 resp. 47.5%
Create social housing provided and managed by the City or a nonprofit 25 resp. 42.4%
Policies to promote long-term / permanent a�ordable ownership housing 25 resp. 42.4%
Policies to promote the production of on-site, mixed-income rental housing 25 resp. 42.4%
Other
2 resp. 3.4%
Do not monetize public property for private gain
Stop caving in to developers and Cal!
out of 60 answered
Other
• Do not monetize public property for private gain
• Stop caving in to developers and Cal!
211

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 648 of 1385 ends

Page 652 ends

5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach
https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 8/14 What is your a�iliation to Berkeley?
59 Berkeley resident
51 resp. 86.4%
Work in Berkeley
21 resp. 35.6%
UC Berkeley student
12 resp. 20.3%
Berkeley business owner
5 resp. 8.5%
Other
0 resp. 0%
out of 60 answered5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 9/14 What is your age?
59 25-34
16 resp. 27.1%
65 and older
12 resp. 20.3%
55-64
10 resp. 16.9%
35-44
9 resp. 15.3%
18-24
8 resp. 13.6%
45-54
4 resp. 6.8%
Under 18
0 resp. 0%
out of 60 answered
212
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 649 of 1385 ends

Page 653 ends

5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach
https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 10/14 How do you identify?
59 White or Caucasian
42 resp. 71.2%
Hispanic or Latino/a/x
7 resp. 11.9%
Asian or Pacific Islander
6 resp. 10.2%
Black or African American
5 resp. 8.5%
Other Race
3 resp. 5.1%
Multiracial or Biracial
2 resp. 3.4%
out of 60 answered
5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach
https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 12/14 Do you have a disability? (e.g. hearing, sight, physical, mental) 59 Yes
16 resp. 27.1%
No
43 resp. 72.9%
out of 60 answered
213

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 650 of 1385 ends

Page 654 ends

5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach
https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 11/14 What is your annual income?
59 $100,000-$149,999
10 resp. 16.9%
$35,000-$49,999
9 resp. 15.3%
$50,000-$74,999
8 resp. 13.6%
$10,000-$14,999
7 resp. 11.9%
$15,000-$24,999
7 resp. 11.9%
$75,000-$99,999
7 resp. 11.9%
Less than $10,000
6 resp. 10.2%
$150,000-$199,999
2 resp. 3.4%
$25,000-$34,999
2 resp. 3.4%
$200,000 or more
1 resp. 1.7%
out of 60 answered
214
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 651 of 1385 ends

Page 655 ends

5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach
https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 13/14 Do you work in a housing-related field? If so, in which area? 59 No
49 resp. 83.1%
Other community-based or service organization
4 resp. 6.8%
Housing Advocacy
3 resp. 5.1%
Homeless Services
2 resp. 3.4%
A�ordable Housing Development
1 resp. 1.7%
Independent Living Services
0 resp. 0%
Market Rate Housing Development
0 resp. 0%
Public Housing Authority
0 resp. 0%
Other
3 resp. 5.1%
Construction
out of 60 answered
Other
• Construction
• Evaluation for social services and programs,
including non-profit community development
corporations
• City commissions-it is work but don't know if
you consider it such.
215

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 652 of 1385 ends

Page 656 ends

5/12/22, 11:03 AM Berkeley Renters Outreach
https://dllxetanpe6.typeform.com/report/htsl3iJw/MEXNb3UNzjH4Y1mk?view_mode=print 14/14 Evaluation for social services and programs, including non-profit community development corporations
Would you be interested in participating in a small group Zoom meeting to discuss your housing experience?

We are seeking 10 participants and the meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 25th at 12pm and will last for 90 minutes. Participants will receive a $20 gi� card to Berkeley Bowl a�er the meeting.
59 Yes
32 resp.

54.2%
No
27 resp. 45.8%
out of 60 answered
216
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 653 of 1385 ends

Page 657 ends

F6 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
The City of Berkeley held stakeholder interviews between the Fall of 2021 and the Spring of 2022 with individuals and groups that have insight into or a critical stake in local housing. The goal
was to establish a baseline understanding of the
community’s housing needs, historical and current housing production, housing constraints, housing opportunity sites, and goals, priorities, and desired outcomes for the updated Housing Element. The interviewees also provided guidance for future community outreach and engagement.

This report briefly summarizes key themes and insights shared during the interviews.
• Housing Advocacy: Housing advocacy
groups advance housing justice by organizing,
building coalitions, providing resources, and
empowering communities. While housing
advocacy organizations can cover many topics,
those interviewed specifically focused on the
three Ps: Preservation, production, and (tenant)
protection.
• Community Organizations: Community
organizations aim to serve the community's
needs, with housing being a primary concern.

Members work with other organizations,
local government, and individuals to address
housing insecurity and homelessness. These
organizations advocate for and support their
members, which often represent specific
populations such as Latinx or African American
members.
• Organizations Representing Special Needs:

These organizations offer support services
tailored to the needs of the groups they serve,
including seniors, disabled, and homeless. In
addition to providing assistance in securing
housing, these organizations often offer a safe
space to go and a wide array of other community
resources, such as meals and transportation.
• Institutional Representatives: Both UC
Berkeley and the Berkeley Unified School District
(BUSD) are involved in housing planning and
development that impact the needs of Berkeley’s
workforce and significant University population.
• Market-Rate Housing Developers: Market-
rate developers build housing and mixed-use
projects to meet market demand -- to be rented
or sold without income restrictions.
• Affordable Housing Developers: Affordable
housing developers build and preserve housing
for low-income and special needs populations.

These organizations create affordable housing
that are deed-restricted for households who
meet certain income criteria.
• Real Estate Professionals: Real estate
professionals include brokers, property
managers, and leasing agents. Working with
both residents and property owners, they
are knowledgeable about the housing needs,
real estate market, and demands of the local
community.

F6.1 OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED
Interviewees included representatives from housing advocacy groups, community organizations, organizations representing special needs, market-rate housing developers, affordable housing developers, and real estate professionals. 217

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 654 of 1385 ends

Page 658 ends

INTERVIEW THEMES

GENERAL COMMENTS
Berkeley stakeholders highlighted the following as
examples of housing success in the City:
• Diversity of housing options and amenities.

Berkeley provides a variety of housing options and
local amenities. Amenities identified include: street
trees, good schools, mixed-use corridors, and a sense
of identity.
• Proximity of housing to campus. Students, faculty,
and staff are generally able to live in the city and close to campus.
• Tenant-landlord relations. The Ellis Act is not an
issue and tenants abide by lease terms.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
Stakeholders also identified the following housing
developments as successes:

Specific Projects
• Maudelle Miller Shirek Community affordable
housing development near the Ashby BART station.
• Harper Crossing affordable housing development
for middle- and low-income seniors, located close to
the Ashby BART station.
• Berkeley Way affordable housing development,
including a homeless shelter and on-site supportive
services. Additionally, this project’s use of funds
from the City’s Housing Funding Trust Fund was
highlighted as a success.

General Development Successes
• Development along Shattuck. Participants identified
recent increase in multi-family and denser housing
throughout the city, but particularly downtown along
Shattuck.
• Transit-oriented development projects near
BART. Participants highlighted the plan for housing
near both the North Berkeley and Ashby BART
stations, and in particular efforts to provide affordable housing near these sites.
• Market rate development projects. The success
of for-profit development and the contributions to
both the Housing Trust Fund and the provision of
inclusionary housing.
• Non-profit development projects. The nonprofit
sector’s ability to work with limited sites.

CITY PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES
General
• Provision of a broad mix of programs,
including both housing and
complementary programs demonstrate
and support City priorities of creating
more affordable housing, protecting
tenants, preserving existing housing
stock, and making it easier and more
affordable for residents to stay in the city.
• Successful communication and leadership
from the Mayor and City Council.

Tenant support and services
• City’s support of the Tenant Opportunity
to Purchase Act (TOPA).
• Rent control allowing residents to stay in
their homes and is the most well-known
form of support amongst renters.
• Rent subsidies.

Affordable housing policies and funding
• Effort to get a policy passed for residents
to stay in the city and not lose “naturally
occurring affordable housing” (term for
housing in the market that is still available
for low income)
• Passage of Measure O (2018) to fund
housing for low-, very-low, median-, and
middle-income individuals and working
families.
• Funding for limited equity coops.

University relations
• Negotiations with the University of
California to keep rents down and ensure
that it does not continue to increase
enrollment without providing additional
housing.

Housing for people with disabilities
• Efforts to keep residents in their homes
via the loan program for disabled
property owners to upgrade their homes
and ensure continued home access.
218
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 655 of 1385 ends

Page 659 ends

CONCERNS WITH HOUSING IN BERKELEY
Homelessness
• Serious concern about people who are sleeping
outside and on the streets - there is a need for
better support of support services by the County
and City.
• Service providers and nonprofits lack of capacity
and resources.

Lack of Housing (especially Affordable Housing)
• There is a general lack of supply across the
whole city.
• Too few affordable housing units available. Wait
lists are too long and it is not meeting the needs
of low- and moderate-income residents.
• Lack of housing diversity when it comes to
affordable and subsidized housing. There is a
need for more Section 8 housing.
• Unbalanced provision of market rate housing as
compared to affordable housing.
• ADU’s are market rate rentals, and should not be
considered affordable.
• You have to have preservation of existing
housing alongside production of new housing to
ensure there is enough, affordable housing.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• Making sure that a city is affirmatively doing fair
housing. Need a strong needs analysis that will
support policies to address the needs and robust
community engagement process in that work.
• Need to include disability, low-income people in
these efforts.

Lack of Affordable Ownership Units
• Non-profit affordable housing is all rental; little
opportunity for ownership and building equity.
• Need a plan that distributes affordable housing
across the whole city.

Lack of Family Housing Options
• There’s not enough affordable housing provided
for families – most new developments appear to
target young professionals and students.
• Section 8 family housing in close proximity to
green space , recreation centers, and outdoor
activities is needed.
• Lack of housing options for families. Many
families are priced out of homes and there aren’t
enough apartments large enough or affordable
enough for families.
• Berkeley has a "Missing Middle" problem and
is especially lacking affordable missing middle
housing.

Lack of Accessible Housing
• Would be helpful if everyone applied principles
of universal design to ensure that housing
benefits and is accessible to the widest possible
range of people.
• There should be incentives to make ADUs (and
all types of housing units) accessible.
• Low-income, disabled housing needs are not
being met. There is a need for subsidized housing
for the disabled.
• Need more affordable and accessible housing for
the growing older adult population.
• Accessible housing that allows communities to
age in place should is not provided to the Black
community.
• Disconnect between housing developers and the
needs (both affordability and accessibility) for
the disabled -- particularly for affordable, low-
income housing (both nonprofit and for profit)
• There are too many constraints making it
difficult for non-profits to make housing more
accessible. For example, non-profits needs
permissions from owners/managers before it
can start work (e.g., adding ramp or handrail).

Parking Need for People with Disabilities
• People with disabilities need their cars because
of their disability, so the increasingly common
calls for less parking raise concerns.

Unhealthy Homes
• It is challenging to find an acceptable home to
live in, making finding housing a taxing process.
• Mold is increasingly a problem, as homes age –
sometimes it exacerbates disabilities. Need mold
abatement (and avoidance) strategies.

Vacant Homes & Buildings
• The City should penalize owners of housing
units that sit vacant for too long.
• There are many vacant buildings and storefronts
along major arterials - there is an opportunity to
reimagine these spaces as housing units.
219

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 656 of 1385 ends

Page 660 ends

Displacement and Loss of Diversity
• Housing unit production is not keeping pace
with the significant increase of jobs in the Bay
Area.
• Berkeley residents are getting priced out of
homes by Silicon Valley tech employees, out-
of-state investors, and corporations, leading to
gentrification and cost of living increases.
• Fears of changing neighborhoods.
• Lack of transparency around who is buying
homes.
• Need for a tax on foreign investors.
• Lack of affordable housing options is forcing
people to move out of the area (often only to
commute into the city for work and to maintain
social ties) and contributing to a lack of resident
diversity.
• Racial inequality in housing. Low income and
communities of color are often displaced and
have a more difficult time finding housing in
Berkeley or staying in Berkeley. There is a need
for a right to return policy to maintain ethnic
and economic diversity in the City.
• There needs to be a Right to Return policy,
specifically so renters pushed out due to
gentrification have the option to return.

Employer-Assisted Housing
• Concern over whether teach housing as it is
currently proposed in the city is the right policy.

Teachers should be given agency to decide if
they want to live in Berkeley and how they want
to live.

Lack of Live/Work Opportunities
• Would like to see more, affordable live/work
opportunities, particularly geared towards
artists.

Lack of Funding for Housing
• The 20% affordable requirement and option to
pay into the Housing Trust Fund is not enough.

Safety for Bicyclists, Pedestrians, and Transit Users
• Walking and biking should be made safer
through bike lanes, street lights, and other
accommodations.

RHNA and Housing Element Site Inventory
• When the city identifies a site for affordable
development, they should do so across the city
in high resourced neighborhoods and real sites.
• The City should also consider if a site could
realistically be developed within 8 years. There is
a shell game of identifying sites and not building
anything. If supported by adequate zoning, then
that would influence how competitive sites
would be for LIHTC (Low Income Housing Tax
Credits). If it is out of the area and not conducive
to Tax Credits, then it should not be a site.

Tenant Protections
• Would like to see the restriction of owner move-
ins and Ellis Act evictions.
• Rent-controlled tenants may feel too precarious
to report landlords, there should be anonymized
or automatic quality inspections.
• There needs to eb stronger rent regulations in
general.

MARKET TRENDS
Retail and Office Markets are Declining
• Government constraints and the cost of tenant
improvements make it hard for small businesses
to survive.
• Declining uses, like single-story retail on
arterials
• Retail is in decline – there are many brand-new
buildings with vacant retail. We should convert
retail into residential or live/work, allowing for
more flexible uses of the spaces.
• Offices are also in decline. Not likely to have a lot of new office construction. Making conversions
of upper floor office space to housing easier and
less expensive should be considered.

Institutional Impacts on the Local Housing Market
• Churches with parking lots are an opportunity,
especially if parking requirements for the new
housing can be reduced.
• UC Berkeley housing more students on campus,
which frees up housing for other residents and
reduces issues related to move-in and move-out
(which is a pain point for the community)
• Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) is
building staff/faculty housing (workforce
housing)
220
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 657 of 1385 ends

Page 661 ends

Hazard Mitigation
• Don’t reduce permitted housing in hazard zones.

Focus on hazard mitigation.

Historical and Landmark Sites
• Historical and landmark sites (local, state, and
federal) create challenges, e.g., usually not
possible to put a second story on top
Site Constraints
• Small sites
• Best parcels are in retail, but most have existing
tenants. Hard enough to get one to sell, let alone
more than one.

Permitted Uses and Zoning
• R1 and R2, especially along the corridors, should
be rezoned
• Bring back the 1970s zoning – Berkeley was
downzoned. Any block with a building over
10 units should be rezoned to allow the same
density.
• Height limits should be increased well beyond
35' - especially in areas near campus.
• Look at zoning. COVID and downfall of retail,
and a lot of industries have moved. City could
facilitate conversion of the industrial space to
housing units by providing incentives.
• Not a lot of large of opportunity sites in Berkeley
under the current zoning.
• The City should consider building on a per bed
basis for student housing.

Permitted Densities and Heights
• Land use laws and ordinances that prevent
development density and height
• Need to be able to develop in excess of 100 units
– ideal is 150 units. This is mostly mid-rise (5-8
stories)
• Height is the biggest constraint
• The density bonus allows for greater flexibility
with building higher; however, if a building goes
above 8 stories, the construction type changes
and costs increase, creating additional barriers.
• Lack of political will to relax development
standards. Housing is very expensive to build.
• The City should encourage greater density along
major arterial streets.

Development Standards
• Open space as calculated in some neighborhoods
is a bit high
Use Specific Plans with a Master EIR
• Recommend using Specific Plans with Master
EIR so as to to streamline approach to design the
project
Entitlement and Permitting Delays
• Design review and the permitting process takes
too long
• More predictability is always better for developers
• Cost continues to go up due to the amount of time
to get entitled
Lack of Funding for Affordable Housing
• Lack of funding
• Need for a local match to be available. Measure
O was helpful, but three years later, most of the
funding is committed to projects online or coming
online. No new money needed for new projects.
• Need subsidies and/or density bonuses for
market-rate student housing. The market
economics do not work. Need incentives for
building student housing by private market.
• Use of housing choice vouchers is hard for owners
due to onerous processes, such as the HQS
inspection.

Workforce Housing Funding
• Institutions have land but no funding (for what is
subsidized housing). Successful projects depend
on local bond to provide financing.

Community Resistance
• Lack of consensus about housing amongst
leadership with some in support of housing and
other opposing density.
• City has 33 committees; there is only one that is
pro-business, so a lot of resistance from a lot of
fronts.
• Community organization pushback to
development makes it difficult to build anything.

Some housing projects downsized because of
pressure.

Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs)
• CBAs are a black box process – there needs to be
more certainty, predictability.

BARRIERS AND CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION
221

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 658 of 1385 ends

Page 662 ends

BEST HOUSING TYPES AND LOCATIONS
Key Locations
• Close to transit, amenities, schools, restaurants,
cultural resources – developers interested in
four block proximity.

On-site Services
• Affordable housing with on-site services, such
as social workers or medical support, to better
serve tenants with special housing needs.

Tiny Houses and ADUs
• Tiny houses and ADUs will be some help in terms
of increasing the amount of available housing
and allowing for increased density in single-
family neighborhoods.
• Would be helpful if there were incentives to
make ADUs (and all types of housing units)
accessible
BART Stations
• BART housing at Ashby and North Berkeley is a
huge opportunity for the neighborhoods they’re
in, but are facing pushback from residents who
want to maintain their single-family home
neighborhoods.

Corridors
• Shattuck
• San Pablo
• Sacramento
• Telegraph
• College
• Solano
Downtown
• Downtown area still provides different
opportunities
• Some of the best sites are anywhere within 5-6
blocks of downtown Berkeley.
• The 12 blocks south of Campus (Bancroft, College,
Dana, Dwight) could be a great opportunity
to build higher, but is currently limited to four
stories right now.

Higher Density in Residential Neighborhoods
• Density and height are increasing in
neighborhoods, but there is a need to focus on
retaining scale. 2-3 story, 4-6 unit seems to have
worked. When you get much bigger than that, it
gets more impersonal & out of scale.

South Berkeley
• There is a general need for development in
South Berkeley.
• South Berkeley Senior Center. The site is
currently two stories with lots of activities for
seniors; it could be developed to have more
housing above it.

West Berkeley
• There is a general need for development in West
Berkeley
• Industrial sites in West Berkeley. If designed
correctly, people are willing to live in industrial
area.

Ground Floor Housing
• Security and privacy concerns
• Want to keep it active use
• Can also be an opportunity - there's a lot of
commercial vacancy right now. Consider using
ground floor spaces for affordable housing for
artists who would be better able to activate the
space via live/work designations.

Site Amenities Needed
• Bike storage
222
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 659 of 1385 ends

Page 663 ends

Recommended Channels for Outreach
• Email – top preference although noted students
don’t read email actively
• City emails/City website (although can
be overwhelming with all competing city
initiatives/meetings)
• Text/phone calls – varying individual
preferences
• Existing organizational listservs
• Inconsistent / unreliable use of social media
• Through school district (day care the great
equalizer)
• Door knocking/ on the ground
• School-based partnerships - send information
home to families, set up referral channels
between community-based organizations and
counselors, etc.
• Community bulletin boards
• South Berkeley Senior Center bulletin board
(outside now because of Covid)
• Bulletin board outside City Hall
For the disabled population
• The more the modes of communication the
better
• Communication in large print
• Mail
• Email
• Keep in mind that for deaf residents closed
caption is not perfect – some automated
systems don’t translate perfectly; English is
second language for those born deaf; need sign
interpreter.
• YouTube videos (including ASL) work well
• Center for Independent Living (CIL) could help
distribute info about the planning process (and
via its partners)

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
For the homeless population
• Improved engagement with the homeless
population
• Can distribute information/surveys at resource
centers like Women’s Drop in Center
For students & renters
• More education on what renter rights are
Locations for Potential In-Person Meetings
• Local institutions, such as churches and other
faith-based locations, parks, libraries, fire
stations, elementary schools, the university
• Senior centers and recreation centers
• Nonprofits, like the Ed Roberts Center
223

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 660 of 1385 ends

Page 664 ends

F7 COMMUNITY OUTREACH EVENTS
Figure F-27 Housing Element Update Community Outreach Locations In the Spring of 2022, four community outreach events were conducted at community gathering locations, including local businesses, farmers' markets, and recreation events to receive input on housing. Interactive poster boards, flyers, QR codes linking to online surveys, and other informational items were provided to interested participants. A total of 14 hours were spent engaging with the public at these events and 55 written public comments were collected.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
224

Page 661 of 1385 ends

Page 665 ends

F7.1 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY FARMERS' MARKET - FEBRUARY 26, 2022 What We Heard
Figure F-28 Downtown Berkeley Farmers' Market Board Results Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Downtown Farmers’ Market Outreach February 26, 2022
Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Downtown Farmers’ Market Outreach February 26, 2022
"I grew up in Berkeley but now with my
husband and 2 year old live in a agrage
and see ourselves leaving the area soon..."
“More rent funds for crisis so one bad day
doesn’t mean homelessness.”
“Expand rent protections!!”
“Maximize density”
“Stop gentrification”
“Permits to build takes way too long.”
“No NIMBYism - “historical community”
is another way of saying NIMBY.”
“Protect rights to sun and solar”
“UC Berkeley needs to build more housing
for students on their own land.”
“ Affordable housing for students.”
“More Group Living Accommodations
for international students + students in
general.”
“ ...They really need to have better
oversight on their [developer] inten-
tions. They take advantage of the City of
Berkeley.”
“ Artist co-worker housing - safe and af-
fordable.”
225

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 662 of 1385 ends

Page 666 ends

Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Downtown Farmers’ Market Outreach February 26, 2022
Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Downtown Farmers’ Market Outreach February 26, 2022
What We Heard
“The amount of housing isn’t the problem
- it’s the type of housing we’re getting.

Unaffordable housing.”
“N Berkeley BART project - design
structure in a way that stair steps or has
levels so that the height is less dramatic
and still keep less than 5 stories high.”
“Solve problem of people on streets in
tents. Tents are not housing.”
“More affordable senior housing that
is around more amenities (w/in house
services).”
"Rent protection and caps on commercial
properties please."
“Please put community needs in empty
storefronts (clinics, childcare, bath-
rooms) and imrove quality of life and
walkable cities.”
“Need public housing transation tax and
tax speculation.”
“Vacancy tax - tax if you have more than
5 units.”
“More low income in hills.”
226
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 663 of 1385 ends

Page 667 ends

Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Downtown Farmers’ Market Outreach February 26, 2022
Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Downtown Farmers’ Market Outreach February 26, 2022
Figure F-29 Downtown Berkeley Farmers' Market Photos
227

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 664 of 1385 ends

Page 668 ends

F7.2 BERKELEY BOWL RENTER OUTREACH - APRIL 25, 2022
Figure F-30 Berkeley Bowl Renter Outreach Board Results For more information, visit: www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement For questions, contact: [email protected] May 14, 2022 Housing ElEmEnt u pdatE 2023-2031
BErkElEy Bowl r EntErs ’ o utrEacH
May 9, 2022
For more information, visit: www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement For questions, contact: [email protected] May 14, 2022 Housing ElEmEnt u pdatE 2023-2031
BErkElEy Bowl r EntErs ’ o utrEacH
May 9, 2022
What We Heard
“More housing.”
“Don’t be like E-’ville (the sun never hits the
sidew
alk and nobody walks anyway). The
big ones are ok (on Shattuck and Univer-
sity).”
“Neighborhoood preference for Affordable
Housing Lotteries.”
“Everyone should have affordable hosuing
--> social housing.”
228
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 665 of 1385 ends

Page 669 ends

Figure F-31 Berkeley Bowl Renter Outreach Photos
229

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 666 of 1385 ends

Page 670 ends

F7.3 ROSES IN BLOOM YOUTH OUTREACH - MAY 14, 2022
Figure F-32 Roses in Bloom Youth Outreach Board Results What We Heard
“Fund pilot projects - co-housing, shared
units, bedroom rentals, mat
ching ADUs with
renters.”
“stop building buildings all over Berkeley.”
“Increase transit with increased density.”
“Incentivize (or assist) owners of rental
properties to keep their properties in excel-
lent conditions.”
“Low c
ost.”
“This should be a state and county focus and
not a city focus.”
“Senior housing for those who acn pay mar-
ket rate independent and assisted living.”
“More handicap friendly.”
“More homebuyers programs.”
230
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 667 of 1385 ends

Page 671 ends

Figure F-33 Roses in Bloom Youth Outreach Photos
231

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 668 of 1385 ends

Page 672 ends

F7.4 POPPIN' THURSDAY ALL AGES SKATE PARTY YOUTH OUTREACH Figure F-34 Poppin' Thursday All Ages Skate Party Youth Outreach Board Results What We Heard
“Opposed to housing structures exceeding 4
stories. I propose mor
e sites but not higher
than 4 stories.”
“Need Section 8 housing because affordable
housing isn’t affordable.”
“Top concern: Pushing out people of color.”
232
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 669 of 1385 ends

Page 673 ends

Figure F-35 Poppin' Thursday All Ages Skate Party Youth Outreach Photos 233

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 670 of 1385 ends

Page 674 ends

Internal
EEvveennttss
Farmers’ Market
Berkeley Bowl
Roses in Bloom
Poppin’ Thursday
Internal
EEvveennttss
Berkeley Bowl
Roses in Bloom
Poppin’ Thursday
Figure F-36 Graphs showing the breakdown of responses to the questions on each board. 234
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 671 of 1385 ends

Page 675 ends

Internal
EEvveennttss
Roses in Bloom
Poppin’ Thursday
235

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 672 of 1385 ends

Page 676 ends

F7.5 HARVEST FESTIVAL OUTREACH
Figure F-37 Harvest Festival Outreach Board Results
236
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 673 of 1385 ends

Page 677 ends

Figure F-38 Harvest Festival Outreach Photos
237

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 674 of 1385 ends

Page 678 ends

F7.6 SPROUL PLAZA SOUTHSIDE OUTREACH
Figure F-39 Sproul Plaza Southside Outreach Board Results 238
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 675 of 1385 ends

Page 679 ends

Figure F-40 Sproul Plaza Southside Outreach Photos
239

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 676 of 1385 ends

Page 680 ends

Page 677 of 1385 ends

Page 681 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S
A RESOLUTION TO (A) CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2022010331) AND ADOPT RELATED CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,

MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND (B) APPROVE AND ADOPT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO

UPDATE THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF 2023-2031.

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. requires every city and county in California to adopt a General Plan for its long-range development, and further, to periodically update that plan to reflect current conditions and issues; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65302(c) mandates that each City shall include a Housing Element in its General Plan, and that the Housing Element be updated regularly on a schedule set forth in the law to reflect current conditions and legal requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley (“City”) adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update of the Berkeley General Plan on April 28, 2015 with Resolution No. 67,008-N.S.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), the City of Berkeley, as lead agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (SCH No. 2022010331) (“EIR” or “Final EIR”); and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2022, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) to analyze the environmental effects of the Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Draft EIR scoping hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 9, 2022, to receive comments on the scope and content of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability/Release of a Draft EIR was issued on August 30, 2022 along with the publication of the Draft EIR itself, both of which were made available to the general public and governmental agencies for review and comment; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and took public testimony, which was preceded by the distribution of notices in accordance with State and local noticing requirements; and

Page 678 of 1385 ends

Page 682 ends

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability/Release of a Final EIR was issued and a Final EIR was published on November 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the August 2022 Draft EIR and the November 2022 Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, all documents constituting the record of this proceeding are and shall be retained by the City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department, Land Use Planning Division, at 1947 Center Street, Berkeley, California; and WHEREAS, the California legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS, the legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and
WHEREAS, the legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years”; and
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of Gov. Code) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 8,943 housing units, comprised of 2,446 very-low income units, 1,408 low-income units, 1,416 moderate-income units, and 3,664 above moderate-income units; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element must be adopted to comply with State law, accommodate the RHNA, affirmatively further fair housing (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(5)), and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing (Gov. Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c)); and WHEREAS, the City prepared the 2023-2031 Housing Element in conformance with State and local planning law and practices, considering local conditions and context, including economic, environmental, and fiscal factors; and
WHEREAS, State law generally states that the Housing Element and the City’s zoning must support housing for all income levels, and residential densities under 30 units per

Page 679 of 1385 ends

Page 683 ends

Page 3 ends

acre do not support construction of housing for lower income households (Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv)); and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element includes an inventory of sites that can accommodate new housing sufficient to meet the City’s RHNA obligation at each income level; and WHEREAS, more than fifty-percent (50%) of the sites identified to accommodate the City’s low-income RHNA obligation are non-vacant. However, the City specifically finds that the existing uses on such non-vacant parcels will not constrain development or redevelopment during the 2023-2031 planning period, and so such sites can meet their development potential; and
WHEREAS, the preparation, adoption, and implementation of the Housing Element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach over the last 17 months, including three public workshops, six outreach events, three online surveys, two walking tours, approximately 28 stakeholder interviews and meetings, four City Council work sessions, five Planning Commission meetings, and presentations before the Homeless Services Panel of Experts, Commission on Disability, Landmarks Preservation Commission, Zoning Adjustments Board, Commission on Aging, Energy Commission, Children, Youth and Recreation Commission, Housing Advisory Commission, Rent Stabilization Board, Civic Arts Commission, and the City/UC/Student Relations Committee; and
WHEREAS, public input influenced the development of the housing goals and policies, housing opportunity sites, and housing program of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its initial review, following 30-day public review between June 13 and July 14, 2022, and incorporating revisions over the course of 18 business days between July 15 and August 10, 2022 (Gov. Code Section 65585); and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2022 and October 10, 2022, HCD provided the City with a number of preliminary comments about the draft Housing Element. City staff revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information and analysis based on preliminary comments and a revised draft was made available for public comment from October 18 through October 25, 2022 and City staff held office hours on October 24, 2022. On November 1, 2022, the City submitted a revised draft Housing Element to HCD for follow-up review; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2022, the City received a letter from HCD stating that while the draft Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Government

Page 680 of 1385 ends

Page 684 ends

Page 4 ends

Code). The letter noted that the Housing Element would meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to comply with the letter’s requirements. On November 23, 2022, the City published a revised draft Housing Element with the additional descriptions, analysis, and clarifications requested by HCD and sought public comment on the draft; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2022, the City submitted the revised draft Housing Element to HCD for subsequent review with a cover letter listing in detail the City’s response and revisions to address HCD’s comment letter in order to bring the draft Housing Element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing was prepared pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section

22.04.020, Amendment-Procedures required-Planning Commission and City Council, and Gov. Code Section 65355; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, reviewed the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element and its six appendices, including the findings and changes recommended by HCD, the City’s response to HCD’s findings, and public comments, and recommended that the City Council adopt a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, hereby certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no recirculation of the EIR is required.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City and that are identified in the CEQA Findings.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts and incorporates by reference into this Resolution the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit A to Attachment 3, in the January 18, 2023 report to the Berkeley City Council recommending adoption of this Resolution).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, hereby adopts and incorporates by reference into this Resolution the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the significant environmental effects of the Project (Exhibit B to Attachment 3, in the January 18, 2023 report to the Berkeley City Council recommending adoption of this Resolution).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings pursuant to the General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element of the General Plan:

Page 681 of 1385 ends

Page 685 ends

Page 5 ends

1. The 2023-2031 Housing Element and its FEIR comply with the provisions of CEQA.

2. The 2023-2031 Housing Element is internally consistent, and is consistent with the rest of the City’s General Plan.

3. The 2023-2031 Housing Element process was developed through diligent effort by City staff to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(9)).

4. The 2023-2031 Housing Element consists of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Furthermore, the Housing Element identifies adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and makes adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community (Gov. Code Section 65583).

5. The 2023-2031 Housing Element affirmatively furthers fair housing by analyzing and taking action to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10) and 65584.0). The Housing Element provides an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity, and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing. In particular:
a. The Housing Element proposes to allow for multi-unit development in all residential zones, including R-1;
b. The RHNA strategy reflects the overall composition of Berkeley and does not exacerbate existing segregation conditions related to race or ethnicity;
c. The RHNA strategy does not exacerbate existing low and middle income (“LMI”) household trends by disproportionately placing lower income units in LMI areas at a higher rate. A larger proportion of moderate and above moderate income units are in LMI areas compared to lower income units;
d. The RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas (“R/ECAPs”). Of the units included in the sites inventory, 26.6% are located in R/ECAPs. A significantly smaller proportion of lower income units are located in R/ECAPs compared to moderate and above moderate income units;

Page 682 of 1385 ends

Page 686 ends

Page 6 ends

e. The RHNA strategy helps fair housing conditions by placing future lower income households in high resource areas. Approximately 60% of RHNA units, including 67.3% of lower income units, are in highest or high resource tracts. There is only one low resource tract (Southside), and the City allocated a mix of units of various income levels in this tract;
f. Appendix E identifies goals and actions to address four identified fair housing issues, including expanding fair housing testing and outreach, pursuing strategies to produce more affordable housing and protect tenants from displacement in cost-burdened neighborhoods, seeking grants to fund affordable housing, establishing a development arm of the Berkeley Housing Authority to develop new affordable units, funding home modifications for lower income households, creating opportunity for infill middle housing in single-family districts, and developing a housing preference policy to assist residents at risk of displacement;
g. In response to HCD’s feedback, the Housing Element now evaluates programs relative to specific neighborhoods for purposes of AFFH, such as targeting fair housing outreach and enforcement, rental housing safety programs, and rental assistance programs in Central and South Berkeley where there are higher proportions of lower income households and cost-burdened renters.
h. Program 36 – Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring includes a mid-term evaluation of the RHNA strategy and development progress, including a commitment to make adjustments as appropriate to achieve the City’s goals, including AFFH.

6. HCD staff reviewed the City’s Draft Housing Element as required by Section 65585(b) of the Government Code, and the City’s responses, described in the staff report, have been included as part of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element.

7. Based upon the comments from HCD and the City’s responses to those comments, the 2023-2031 Housing Element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the 2023-2031 Housing Element and its appendices, which has addressed and has incorporated findings from HCD, as shown in Attachment 1 to the January 18, 2023 report to the Berkeley City Council recommending adoption of this Resolution.

Page 683 of 1385 ends

Page 687 ends

Page 7 ends

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 2023-2031 Housing Element supersedes and replaces the 2015-2023 Housing Element.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council intends to complete the HCD review process to obtain their finding of substantial compliance and certification and hereby authorizes the City Manager to make non-substantive changes to the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element in response to comments received from HCD to achieve certification.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to distribute copies of the Housing Element in the manner provided in Gov. Code Section 65357.

Page 684 of 1385 ends

Page 688 ends

City of Berkeley 2023-2031
Housing Element Update

Responses to Comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2022010331
prepared by
City of Berkeley
Land Use Planning Division
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, California 94704
Contact: Grace Wu, Principal Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
December 2022
Attachment 3

Page 685 of 1385 ends

Page 689 ends

Table of Contents
Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report i Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purp
ose of the Response to Comments Document ..................................................... 1

1.2 Env
ironmental Review Process .................................................................................... 1

1.3 Document Organization ............................................................................................... 2 2 List of Commenters ................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Organization of Comment Letters and Responses ....................................................... 3

2.2 Public and Agency Comments Received ....................................................................... 3 3 Comments and Responses ........................................................................................................ 4 4 Public Hearing Comments ....................................................................................................... 93 5 Draft EIR Text Revisions ......................................................................................................... 100

5.1 Draft EIR Text Revisions ............................................................................................ 100 6 CEQA Implications for Changes to the Housing Element ...................................................... 104

6.1 Changes to the Housing Element ............................................................................. 104

6.2 Environmental Implications ...................................................................................... 104

Page 686 of 1385 ends

Page 690 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ii

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 687 of 1385 ends

Page 691 ends

Introduction
Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Response to Comments Document
This document has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared for the proposed 2023-2031 Berkeley Housing Element Update (proposed HEU). The Draft EIR identifies the likely environmental consequences associated with development of the project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. This Response to Comments (RTC) document provides responses to comments on the Draft EIR and identifies text revisions to the Draft EIR, as necessary, in response to those comments or to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to the text of the Draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). This document, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the proposed project.

1.2 Environmental Review Process
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

On January 14, 2022, the City of Berkeley issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a 30-day comment period to receive input on the scope and content of the EIR and help identify the types of impacts that could result from the project as well as potential areas of controversy. The NOP was filed with the County Clerk, published in a local newspaper, and mailed to public agencies (including the State Clearinghouse), organizations, and individuals considered likely to be interested in the project and its potential impacts. The City received written responses to the NOP regarding the scope and content of the EIR. The City also held an EIR scoping meeting as part of the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on February 9, 2022. No members of the public provided verbal comments at the scoping hearing, but several Planning Commissioners provided verbal comments.

The Draft EIR was made available for public review on August 30, 2022. The Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR was posted with the County Clerk, filed with the State Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies, published in a local newspaper, and mailed to local agencies and interested organizations. A Notice of Completion was also filed with the State Clearinghouse. The Draft EIR and an announcement of its availability were posted electronically on the City's website. The Draft EIR comment period closed on October 17, 2022. During the comment period, the City Planning Commission held a hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR on September 7, 2022. The City received 16 comment letters (including emails) on the Draft EIR during the public comment period.

Copies of those written comments are included in Chapter 3, Comments and Responses – Letters and Emails, of this document. Verbal comments made at the September 7, 2022, Planning Commission hearing are transcribed in Chapter 4, Comments and Responses – Public Hearing Comments.
1

Page 688 of 1385 ends

Page 692 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report

1.3 Document Organization
This RTC document consists of the following chapters:
 Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter discusses the purpose and organization of this RTC document and the Final EIR and summarizes the environmental review process for the project.  Chapter 2: List of Commenters. Chapter 2 contains a list of the agencies, individuals, and organizations that submitted written comments during the public review period on the Draft EIR.
 Chapter 3: Comments and Responses – Letters and Emails. Chapter 3 contains reproductions of comment letters and e-mails received on the Draft EIR. Written responses to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the public review period are provided. Each response is keyed to the corresponding comment.
 Chapter 4: Comments and Responses – Public Hearing Comments. Chapter 4 contains a transcription of the verbal comments received at the public hearing held on the Draft EIR (Planning Commission, September 7, 2022). Written responses to verbal comments raising significant environmental issues received at the hearing are provided.  Chapter 5: Draft EIR Text Revisions. Clarifications, amplifications, and insignificant modifications to the text of the Draft EIR includ
ing modifications made in response to comments received are contained in Chapter 5. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the Draft EIR; text with strikeout formatting has been deleted from the Draft EIR.  Chapter 6: CEQA Implications for Changes to the Housing Element. Chapter 6 contains a discussion of CEQA implications resulting from potential changes to the proposed Housing Element that have been made after circulation of the Draft EIR. 2

Page 689 of 1385 ends

Page 693 ends

List of Commenters

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 2 List of Commenters
This chapter presents a list of comment letters (including emails) received during the public review period and describes the organization by type of commenter and number of the letters and comments for which responses are provided in Chapter 3 of this document.

2.1 Organization of Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters and e-mails are listed in Table 1 below. Letters are grouped into three categories: letters from public agencies (Group A), letters from organizations (Group B), and letters from individuals (Group C). Each comment letter has been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the letter assigned to the group of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response A1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment letter A1).

2.2 Public and Agency Comments Received
The following written comments were submitted to the City during the public review period.

Table 1 List of Letter Numbers and Commenters
Letter Number and Commenter Page Number
Public Agencies
A1 Department of Toxic Substances Control 5
A2 Alame
da County Transportation Commission 10
Organizations
B1 Berkeley Neighborhoods Council 13
B2 YIMBY Law 17
B3 Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association 20
Individuals
C1 Adolfo Cabral 32
C2 Laura Klein 35
C3 Eric Johnson 37
C4 Walter Wood 39
C5 Shirley Dean 41
C6 Toni Mester 50
C7 Kelly Hamargren 56
C8 Virginia Browning 74
C9 Anthony Campana 79
C10 Virginia Browning 81
C11 Virginia Browning 83
C12 Barbara Robben 85
3

Page 690 of 1385 ends

Page 694 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 3 Comments and Responses
Written responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR are provided in this chapter.

Comment letters are provided in their entirety.

Revisions to the Draft EIR in response to the comments received and responses provided, or necessary to amplify or clarify material in the Draft EIR, are included in the responses. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the Draft EIR; text with strikeout has been deleted from the Draft EIR. All revisions are then compiled in the order in which they would appear in the Draft EIR (by page number) in Chapter 5, Draft EIR Text Revisions, of this document.

Many comment letters included comments related to the merits or features of the proposed project itself which do not specifically raise environmental issues or relate directly to the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Draft EIR. In those cases, the com ment is acknowledged, but no
response is required, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 and 15132. As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period…” As stated in the Guidelines, the lead agency is only required to evaluate comments on environmental issues. Nonetheless, all comments will be forwarded to the City of Berkeley Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. 4

Page 691 of 1385 ends

Page 695 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
October 14, 2022
Mr. Ju
stin Horner
City of Berkeley
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected]

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR
T FOR CITY OF BERKELEY 2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE – DATED AUGUST 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2022010331)
Dear Mr. Horner:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, work in close proximity to mining or suspected mining or former mining activities, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR:

1. A State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a local agency that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 101480 should provide regulatory concurrence that proposed project
sites are safe for construction and
the proposed use.

2. The EIR should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on Letter A1
1 2
5

Page 692 of 1385 ends

Page 696 ends

Mr. Horner
Octobe
r 14, 2022

Page 2 ends

the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The EIR should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

3. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance.

This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the EIR.

4. If any sites within the project area or sites located within the vicinity of the project have been used or are suspected of having been used for mining activities, proper investigation for mine waste should be discussed in the EIR. DTSC recommends that any project sites with current and/or former mining operations onsite or in the project site area should be evaluated for mine waste according to DTSC’s 1998 Abandoned Mine Land Mines Preliminary Assessment Handbook.

5. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should
be conducted for the presence of
lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers.

6. If any projects initi
ated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.
2,
cont.
3 4
5 6
6

Page 693 of 1385 ends

Page 697 ends

Mr. Horner
Octobe
r 14, 2022

Page 3 ends

7. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the EIR.

DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR. Should you ch oose DTSC
to provide oversight for any environmental investigations, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight.

Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or vi a email at
[email protected].

Sincerely,

Gavin McCreary
Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Contr
ol
cc: ( via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Dave.Kereazis@dts
c.ca.gov
7 7

Page 694 of 1385 ends

Page 698 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter A1
COMMENTER: Gavin McCreary, Project Manager, Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit, Site Mitigation and Restoration Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control DATE: October 14, 2022
Response A1.1N
This comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. Adoption of the proposed Housing Element Update (HEU) would not approve any physical development (e.g., construction of housing or infrastructure). However, the EIR assumes that such actions are reasonably foreseeable future outcomes of the proposed HEU and therefore analyzes potential physical environmental effects that may result from implementation of the proposed HEU. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, it is acknowledged that future development under the proposed HEU may involve development on sites with existing contamination. As explained in Section 4.8, future development would be subject to regulatory programs such as those overseen by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the DTSC. These agencies require applicants for development of potentially contaminated properties to perform site investigation and cleanup if the properties are contaminated with hazardous substances. In addition, development in the City’s Environmental Management Areas require project review by the City’s Toxics Management Division (TMD) prior to issuance of permits. Further, all projects requiring discretionary review would be subject to a City of Berkeley Standard Condition of Approval to prepare environmental site assessments and implement soil and groundwater management plans as appropriate. Therefore, the Draft EIR acknowledges that the review process for future development would be required to ensure that sites are safe for construction and operation in accordance with applicable agency requirements and oversight.

Response A1.2
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. The discussions in Impact HAZ-1 and Impact HAZ-3 in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR acknowledge that future development under the proposed HEU could involve grading or excavation on sites with existing contamination. There are 361 documented open sites containing or potentially containing hazardous materials contamination in underlying soil and/or groundwater in Berkeley and contamination may be present on other sites not yet documented or listed on a regulatory database. However, as described in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR (pages 4.8-21 to 4.8-22), future development would be subject to numerous regulations and the City of Berkeley’s Standard Conditions of Approval such that development on or near these locations would be preceded by investigation, remediation, and cleanup under the supervision of the City’s TMD or the RWQCB or DTSC before construction activities could begin. The City’s Standard Conditions of Approval and the City’s TMD would require the evaluation of projects to determine if Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are required to characterize potential contamination and if so the applicant would develop a soil and groundwater management plan to address hazards during construction and operation. Therefore, the sites would be remediated in accordance with State and regional standards.
8

Page 695 of 1385 ends

Page 699 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Response A1.3
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. As discussed in responses A1.1 and A1.2, future development would be subject to the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval and the City’s TMD would evaluate projects to determine if Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are required to characterize potential contamination, including ADL, and develop a soil and groundwater management plan to address hazards during construction and operation.

Response A1.4
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. There are no current or former mining operations sites in Berkeley; therefore, issues associated with mine waste would not occur with future development under the proposed HEU.

Response A1.5
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Impact HAZ-1 in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, future projects in Berkeley would be subject to the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State of California, and City of Berkeley related to hazardous materials which include a Building Materials Survey prior to approval of permits for complete or partial demolition. The survey must include, but not be limited to, identification of lead-based paint, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PBC) containing equipment, hydraulic fluids in elevators or lifts, refrigeration systems, treated wood and mercury containing devices (including fluorescent light bulbs and mercury switches). The condition of approval requires that a building materials survey be conducted by a qualified professional. The survey must include plans on hazardous waste or hazardous materials removal, reuse or disposal procedures to be implemented that fully comply with state hazardous waste generator requirements.

Response A1.6
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. As discussed under Impact HAZ-1 in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, future projects in Berkeley would be subject to the City of Berkeley Standard Conditions of Approval, which include preparation of a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) for residential projects that meet certain criteria. The SGMP requires notification to the City’s TMD of hazardous materials found in soils and groundwater during development and the TMD may impose additional conditions as determined to be necessary.

Response A1.7
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. There are no active agricultural operations in Berkeley that use substantial amounts of pesticides. Due to its long- established urbanized character, Berkeley has no active timber harvesting, agricultural, or fish and game industries. Agriculture in Berkeley is limited to personal and community gardens and research at the University of California, Berkeley. Therefore, substantial organochlorinated pesticide contamination is not anticipated to be present on future housing sites. Nonetheless, as discussed in responses A1.2 and A1.6, future development would be subject to numerous regulations and the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval to address potential on-site contamination. 9

Page 696 of 1385 ends

Page 700 ends

October 17, 2022
Justin Horner, Associate Planner
City of Berkeley, Land Use Planning Division
1947 Center St, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA, 94704
SUBJECT: Response to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Berkeley Housing Element Update
Dear Justin,
Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( DEIR) for the City of Berkeley Housing Element Update. The project will encompass the entirety of the City of Berkeley in northern Alameda County. Interstate 80/580, State Route 24, State Route 13/Ashby Avenue, and State Route 123/San Pablo Avenue provide major roadway access to the 17.2 square -mile city, which is comprised of a combination of residential, commercial, and industrial development. The proposed comprehensive Housing Element Update is based on the City’s latest Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which requires the City’s zoning and other land use regulations to accommodate between approximately 10,274 and 11,614 new units. The Housing Element Update identif ies suitable sites for 15,153 housing units in addition to the 1,200 units to be constructed at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations and includes rezoning and implementation programs to support the development of affordable housing which will accommodate an additional 2,745 units , for a total projected buildout of 19,098 units.

The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC ) respectfully submits the following comments:
• Alameda CTC appreciates the use of the Countywide Travel Demand Model to determine the project’s impacts to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
• On page 4.14-2, the DEIR states that the methodology for transportation impact analysis is based on VMT in accordance with Senate Bill 743. SB 743, which states that Level Of Service (LOS) shall not be the sole basis for determining transportation impacts, conflicts with current Congestion Management Program (CMP) legislation, which requires the use of a delay-based metric, such as LOS, to analyze project impacts on roadway performance. As a result, Alameda CTC is still required by CMP legislation to request delay-based analysis of project impacts, but will not subject the results to significance thresholds or use them to determine environmental impacts. The 2022 CMP does not require this analysis to be published as part of the California Environmental Quality Act process, and instead allows it to be sent directly to Alameda CTC. Please make this legislatively required document available to Alameda CTC as soon as possible. • In Appendix G, Citywide VMT per capita is forecasted to estimate the impacts of a full buildout of 19,098 new housing units by 2031. Alameda CTC recognizes this methodology may overestimate the pace at which units are constructed, as RHNA requires these units to be planned for, not Letter A2
1 2
3 10

Page 697 of 1385 ends

Page 701 ends

Amy Million
Septem
ber 6, 2022

Page 2 ends

necessarily constructed, by 2031 . T
his discrepancy does not raise significant concerns regarding the project’s impact.
• On page 4.14-17, the discussion of project impacts and mitigation measures is limited due to the DEIR’s finding that the project will have less than significant impacts without mitigation .

Alameda CTC encourages greater consideration of coordination with transit agencies and the implementation of existing citywide policies such as the Complete Streets and Vision Zero t o support mode shift as the City of Berkeley experiences household growth.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR.

Please contact me at (510) 208-7400 or
Shannon McCarthy at (510) 208-7489 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Colin Dentel-Post
Principal Planner
cc: Shannon McCarthy, Associate Transportation Planner
Chris G. Ma
rks, Associate Transportation Planner
3,
cont.
4 11

Page 698 of 1385 ends

Page 702 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter A2
COMMENTER: Colin Dentel-Post, Principal Planner, Alameda County Transportation Commission
DATE: October 17, 2022
Response A2.1
The commenter is correct that the VMT analysis in Section 4.16, Transportation, of the Draft EIR uses the regional travel demand model maintained by Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) to identify the VMT generated by land uses in Berkeley as well as the entire county.

Response A2.2
As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Therefore, the transportation analysis uses the metric of VMT to analyze transportation-related impacts consistent with Senate Bill 743 and the CEQA Guidelines. While the commenter expresses a desire for the City to prepare a CMP analysis, the commenter is correct that this analysis is not required as part of the CEQA process and therefore it has not been included in the EIR. The City is currently preparing a CMP analysis separately from the CEQA environmental review process and will submit it to the ACTC in compliance with their request.

Response A2.3
The commenter is correct that the buildout assumptions in the Draft EIR are conservative and assume full implementation and completion of development under the proposed HEU within the housing element cycle.

Response A2.4
The Draft EIR includes a city-wide and programmatic analysis of impacts associated with potential buildout under the proposed HEU. The commenters suggestions are noted and are included for the decisionmakers’ considerations.
12

Page 699 of 1385 ends

Page 703 ends

Berkeley Neighborhoods Council
P.O. Box 5108
Berkeley, CA 94705

Dedicated to improving the quality of life for all by creating a unified neighborhood voice for promoting livability and resolving problems

Website:www.berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com
E-mail: [email protected]

October 15/2022

To Justin Horner
Associate Planner
Land Use Planning Division
City of Berkeley

Subject: DEIR for 2023-2031 Housing Element

Dear Mr. Horner:

The leadership of the Berkeley Neighborhoods Council (BNC) is concerned about the DEIR for the 2023- 2031 Housing Element.

Our primary complaint is with the DEIR Impact POP-1 (Page ES-19): “This EIR assumes full buildout of 19,098 residential units in Berkeley through 2031, which equates to a population increase of an estimated 47,443 residents compared to the existing population. However, growth resulting from the project is anticipated and would not constitute substantial unplanned population growth. This impact would be less than significant.”

These statements contradict the Housing Element Update itself, which shows that Berkeley’s population is estimated to increase by 8,160 people from 2020 to 2030 (page 20). The EIR figure of 47,443 far exceeds the city’s own projection and will strain our infrastructure. How is it possible that building for a 37% increase in population in an 8-year span will have “less than significant” impact? Do we have the water, electrical and sewer infrastructure to support this increased population?

Secondly, section 5.2.1 of the DEIR states that the 19,098 additional housing units will be built 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).” Current data show that mass transit ridership decreased sharply during the pandemic and has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Your report also does not take into account the VMT of ride-shares and deliveries of meals and goods, which are widely used by those without cars. Nor does it include any mitigation for the urban heat island that will be created by replacing yards and other “underutilized sites” with 19,098 housing units.

Berkeley is already one of the most dense Bay Area cities. Our high fire zones, liquefaction zones and shoreline zones subject to sea level rise limits suitable areas to build. BNC advocated for the City Council to appeal our RHNA allocation because it does not count University housing nor vacant properties that are brought back onto the market. We cannot support a DEIR that more than doubles this number.

Berkeley Neighborhoods Council

Letter B1
1 2
3 13

Page 700 of 1385 ends

Page 704 ends

Steering Committee
Dean Metzger
Shirley Dean
Janis Battles
David Ushijima
Meryl Siegal
Amiee Baldwin
Paola Laverda
Willie Phillips

Page 701 of 1385 ends

Page 705 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter B1
COMMENTER: Berkeley Neighborhoods Council
DATE: October 15, 2022
Response B1.1
As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR, while the proposed project would not directly result in the construction of specific development projects and would not result in direct physical changes to population or housing, the proposed HEU would promote and facilitate such development. Therefore, reasonably foreseeable effects on population and housing could occur as a result of the proposed zoning changes and these effects are analyzed throughout the EIR.

In accordance with Appendix G, Section XIV of the CEQA Guidelines, Impact POP-1 evaluates whether the proposed HEU would result in substantial unplanned population growth in an area. The analysis in the Draft EIR acknowledges that the assumed buildout of up to19,098 additional units could result in population growth of an estimated 47,443 residents. The Draft EIR acknowledges that this analysis is conservative because it assumes a maximum buildout scenario and includes sites already planned for development and sites that could be developed even if the proposed HEU is not adopted. In addition, the State requires that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of their communities and that the proposed HEU be designed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in accordance with State law. A Housing Element is a plan for housing that is intending to plan for growth; adopting the proposed HEU would not result in unplanned population growth. The regional planning agency, the Association of Bay Area Governments accounts for growth in accordance with the RHNA, which is incorporated into regional plans and planning efforts, such as the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, and Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed HEU would not result in significant impacts related to water, electrical, and sewer infrastructure for the reasons described in those sections.

Response B1.2
Ridership is expected to return to normal levels by the end of the proposed HEU planning cycle, as stated in Section 4.14, Transportation, of the Draft EIR (Pages 4.14-17 to 4.14-18). Further, the Alameda County Transportation Commissions VMT tool, which was used to analyze VMT impacts associated with the project, takes into consideration all vehicle modes, including ride shares and delivery of goods and services. Please refer to response A2.1.

Pursuant to the City’s criteria for determining significant environmental impacts under CEQA (which are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines), increased temperature and heat island effects are not criteria of analysis for consideration in an EIR and are not studied in this EIR. Heat islands are created by a combination of heat-absorptive surfaces, such as dark paving and roofing, heat- generating activities, and the absence of vegetation which provides evaporative cooling. Heat islands can be a side effect of climate change. The effects of the proposed HEU associated with greenhouse gas emissions/climate change are addressed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

As discussed in that section, impacts associated with the project were found to be less than significant. Further, future development under the proposed HEU would be subject to the City’s requirements related to usable open space, lot coverage maximums, landscaping and trees, all of 15

Page 702 of 1385 ends

Page 706 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report which would limit coverage and would provide cooling that would reduce potential heat island effects.

Response B1.3
There are no housing inventory sites or programs under the proposed HEU that would facilitate development adjacent to the shoreline. Impacts associated with liquefaction are analyzed in Section

4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR. As shown on Figure 4.6-3, most of the city is within medium, low, and very low susceptibility to liquefaction. The western-most portion of Berkeley does contain a small area with “High” liquefaction potential; however, neither the proposed inventory sites, the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts, or Southside area overlay the “High” liquefaction zones. A small portion of the MU-R district is within a “High” liquefaction zone. Full build-out of the proposed HEU would increase population, structural development, and infrastructure that would be exposed to these hazards. However, proper engineering and required compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) and other City requirements would minimize the risk to life or property associated with liquefaction hazards. Therefore, these impacts were found to be less than significant. Impacts associated with wildfire and development in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) are discussed in Section 4.17, Wildfire. As discussed in that section, impacts associated with wildfire were found to be significant and unavoidable. The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. The commenters suggestion is noted and is included for the decisionmakers’ considerations.
16

Page 703 of 1385 ends

Page 707 ends

From: Keith Diggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 3:32 PM
To: Horner, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: YIMBY Law comment on DEIR for Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Horner:

I am the housing-elements manager for YIMBY Law, and would like to register a comment on the draft EIR for Berkeley's sixth-cycle housing element.

Alternative 3 of the DEIR proposes forgoing a rezoning that would accommodate some 975 units of "missing-middle" housing. While we agree with the DEIR that this missing-middle housing is necessary to reduce VMT, we disagree with the DEIR's assertion that forgoing missing-middle would mitigate "greenhouse gas emissions." According to UC Berkeley's climate policy tool, "urban infill" housing— such as the proposed missing middle—is by far the most effective policy that Berkeley has to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

YIMBY Law therefore opposes Alternative 3 on the grounds that it would increase GHG emissions relative to the project proposal for allowing missing-middle housing. We support the project proposal.

Please contact me with questions.

Keith
1 Letter B2
17

Page 704 of 1385 ends

Page 708 ends

Diggs
♂
Housing
Elements Advocacy Manager
703-409-5198

Page 705 of 1385 ends

Page 709 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter B2
COMMENTER: Keith Diggs, YIMBY Law
DATE: October 17, 2022
Response B2.1
The commenter’s opinions about the proposed project and Alternative 3 are noted and are included for consideration by City decision-makers. As required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. Under Alternative 3, the Middle Housing Rezoning program would not be included in the proposed HEU.

Approximately 975 fewer units would be constructed compared to the buildout proposed under the HEU, by not rezoning the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts and excluding Middle Housing Rezoning from the proposed project. The analysis in Section 6, Alternatives, explains that fewer total residential units would be developed under this alternative, which would result in a smaller anticipated population increase and less construction-related and operational emissions in comparison to buildout under the proposed HEU. It is acknowledged that urban infill typically generates less emissions per capita than other types of development. This alternative would result in fewer total GHG emissions compared to the proposed HEU; however, it would result in less development overall. The analysis also acknowledges that Alternative 3 would 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 as a result would not reduce driving distances or encourage the use of transit as much as development under the proposed HEU. Therefore, while Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions, the Draft EIR acknowledges that it would not promote urban infill development to the same extent as the proposed project. 19

Page 706 of 1385 ends

Page 710 ends

October 24, 2022
Justin Horner
Associate Planner
Land Use Planning Division
City of Berkeley
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704

Re: Comments to City of Berkeley’s Revised Housing Element Update

Dear Mr. Horner:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA) to express our serious concerns regarding the City of Berkeley’s 2023-‐‑2031 Revised Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Report (Revised Housing Element Update and RHEU). Our comments address the defects in the promulgation of this ill-‐‑advised scheme, as well as the substance of its, now revised, content.

Since 1974, our organization has advocated for the preservation of the wonderful legacy of architecture, history and aesthetics that enrich the City of Berkeley. Our diverse membership of over 1200 citizens includes renters, homeowners, Berkeley activists, architects, historians, professors, students, old and new residents, business owners and retirees. What we have in common is concern for the past and future of Berkeley and a desire to see that, as things change, these changes fit within the pioneering, creative, and often socially revolutionary architecture that typifies our wonderful City. They also want to see that new development respects the existing architecturally significant structures, streetscapes and landscapes that make Berkeley unique.

BAHA believes that this Revised Housing Element Update will be used by outside developers to destroy much of what makes Berkeley special, including its inclusive family neighborhoods Letter B3
1 20

Page 707 of 1385 ends

Page 711 ends

where renters and homeowners have co-‐‑existed since 1876. The many articles in the San Francisco Business Times and other pro-‐‑private development publications about how Berkeley is rolling out the red carpet for real estate developers who plan to construct high-‐‑rise, mixed-‐‑use commercial developments undermine the City’s stated purpose of creating housing equity in its latest RHEU.

Put simply, we don’t believe any of the high-‐‑minded promises floated in the RHEU, which we regard as cynical attempts to mask what is otherwise a massive landgrab by private developers to extend their reach into the traditional residential neighborhoods in Berkeley. This residential area landgrab has the very real possibility of uprooting the last vestiges of our diverse city and destroying its wonderful existing structures and outdoor spaces.

The choice of city planners to exceed the state required housing element by over 7000 units-‐‑-‐‑ almost double what state law mandates-‐‑-‐‑ is unjustified and highly irresponsible. Not only can Berkeley’s existing infrastructure not accommodate the proposed level of housing growth, but this proposed level of development will also necessarily exacerbate the very real threats to life and property endemic in the City at present. As explained below, there is no guarantee in the RHEU– notwithstanding the high-‐‑minded rhetoric – that much if any of the new proposed housing will be realistically available to lower income residents, the working poor, or needy families. The RHEU anticipates that 74% of new planned “in the pipeline” units will be for moderate or above moderate income residents. (RHEU C-‐‑2.) As for units dedicated to low income residents, the time limits built into the scant number of housing density bonus units mean even the few that may be created can revert to market rate after the relevant low-‐‑rent period has expired.

Although it is lengthy, the RHEU contains very little information about the most important part of the proposed plan, namely where this new housing will be built. Table 5.4 asserts that planners found sites for 11,935 units, including 7,310 units on “opportunity sites.” Figure 5.2, “Residential Site Inventory,” designates numerous “opportunity sites,” with no explanation as to the basis by which these parcels were identified and little information on the structures that exist on and adjacent to these locations. The RHEU states only that planners use “objective criteria” and “local knowledge,” to select the opportunity sites (RHEU 100). The description of what planners did – offered at page C-‐‑14 -‐‑-‐‑ is likewise uninformative: they looked at an “interactive online web mapping platform” and annotated the maps, "ʺannotating existing use and providing additional justification for consideration.” RHEU C-‐‑14. Exactly what constitutes “additional justification” was not disclosed. Because Figure 5.2 fails to identify city landmarks, parks, schools, and open spaces, it is virtually impossible to tell the impact of these “opportunity sites” within the given neighborhoods, much less assess the basis upon which they were selected. For example, without an overlay of AC Transit routes, it is impossible to tell which of the sites -‐‑-‐‑ -‐‑pipeline and opportunity —are near public transportation. Figure 5.1 is similarly flawed. Rather than provide street addresses for the “opportunity sites,” the RHEU provide APNs, which makes identifying existing structures and adjacent structures very difficult for a dedicated reader and impossible for 1,
cont
21

Page 708 of 1385 ends

Page 712 ends

the average member of the public. The absence of information about this key aspect of the RHEU is both striking and highly suspicious.

As for landmarked properties, parks, and open spaces, all are effectively ignored.

Notwithstanding the fact that several landmarked and landmark eligible properties are earmarked for demolition under the RHEU plan, the cumulative impact of these demolitions is not examined. Likewise, the individual and cumulative impacts on parks, creeks, and open spaces near the new dense planned developments are ignored.

RHEU & DEIR Fail to Consider Alternate Sites for Construction in High Fire Danger Zones By proposing significant housing growth in areas already challenged by climate change (see Figure 5.2) – including areas of increased fire danger – without performing the required analysis of alternative building sites, city planners have failed to satisfy basic legal requirements thereby undermining their overriding consideration findings. Among other things, the RHEU contemplate new, expansive high-‐‑density development in already densely populated hillside areas where narrow winding streets are the norm. These plans, which are in Very High Fire Severity Zones, necessarily increase the fire danger to residents of these areas both directly (by inhibiting already strained evacuation routes and straining existing utilities that are in many cases decades past their useful life) and indirectly (by necessitating the cutting of old growth trees and increasing pollution due to construction and tail pipe emissions).

At present, in the event of a large earthquake on the Hayward fault or large fire in the Berkeley hills, Berkeley’s current fire services will be unable to save either life or property in the Very High Fire Severity zoned areas and the Hillside Overlay more generally. City officials have acknowledged this potential catastrophic scenario in their communications with CERT groups, filings in connection with UC’s LRDP, and community meetings over the past few years.

Increasing development in these zones will only exacerbate the disaster waiting to happen. The RHEU’s failure to consider alternate building sites in light of the present situation renders the overriding consideration findings null and void. The DEIR is similarly flawed and, therefore, must be redone to address these issues and evaluate alternate sites.

Failure to Consider Aging Infrastructure and Impact of Development on Same The law requires that the city consider the analysis of governmental constraints on the improvement and development of housing. Nowhere in the RHEU does the City address the adequacy of the City’s aging existing infrastructure – including emergency services, emergency service access routes, sewer lines, waterlines -‐‑-‐‑ and private utility infrastructure to support its existing population much less the proposed population growth and development density contemplated in the RHEU. The fact that some areas of the city still used the original hollowed cont
1,
2 3
22

Page 709 of 1385 ends

Page 713 ends

out Redwood trees for underground sewage should cause the public to question whether city infrastructure really can accommodate the thousands more units than called for by state law.

City officials have admitted in connection with Measure L that existing infrastructure –including roads and sewers – are failing and or soon will fail completely absent an infusion of cash via the proposed bond measure. Neither the RHEU nor the DEIR adequately address the impacts of the proposed housing elements on the city infrastructure over the next 10 years. Without doubt problems with the existing infrastructure constitutes a housing constraint. By failing to address this very real constraint, the RHEU and DEIR are demonstrably in adequate.

RHEU and DEIR Fail to Consider Impacts on Landmarked and Historic Structures and Areas Much of Berkeley’s existing housing stock is in aging buildings, some of which are landmarked, historic and/or rent controlled. The RHEU acknowledges this fact. Significantly city planners favor demolishing older structures where the floor area ratio on the lot is small. As long as a building was over 40 years old and its parcel “is underutilized based on existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR),” planners felt free to designate a property an “opportunity site,” namely one that could be demolished in favor of more dense housing. Their justification for disfavoring older houses and designating them as “opportunity sites” was that, “Buildings older than 30 years typically require significant systems upgrades and often do not meet ADA requirements.” Under this logic, many of the city’s landmarked houses could be under the proverbial chopping block. Moreover, creating denser housing on lots where older houses have taken up little lot space (stated as FAR) likely will mean removing mature trees and gardens.

Nowhere does the RHEU provide the required and promised analysis of this existing housing stock at the street or neighborhood level. Instead, the RHEU promises that at some point the future – with no dates provided – a survey of existing structures will be undertaken. We are told that this “survey” will have some connection to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), but no specifics are provided.

Despite these empty promises of a future survey, the RHEU makes many ill-‐‑informed assumptions about Berkeley’s existing housing and ignores the impacts of the proposed new construction on the existing housing where Berkeley citizens are living and working every day.

By way of example, the RHEU ignore the importance of single-‐‑family homes in the San Pablo Park area to the economic empowerment of generations of Berkeley’s African American residents and the more recent trend of gentrification and densification (tearing down to build up) of that area that is decimating that once thriving community.

Likewise, the RHEU maps potential development sites without indicating on the maps the proximity to existing and potential city landmarks. Because the city’s wonderful, landmarked buildings are not even mentioned in the RHEU or reflected on the maps to showing potential 3,
cont.
4 23

Page 710 of 1385 ends

Page 714 ends

development sites, city planners have fundamentally misled the public about the true impacts of their development schemes.

The RHEU also makes unsupported assumptions about wealth, class, and race within the Berkeley neighborhoods where development is proposed. These assumptions are misleading and mask the very real impacts that the proposed development will have in the existing fabric of this City.

Before asserting that any proposed development will make Berkeley “more equitable,” city planners must analyze (a) the current racial and economic makeup of the Berkeley neighborhoods where development is proposed (ideally over a 40-‐‑year period) and (b) the safeguards or guarantees that the proposed developments will make that neighborhood “more equitable.” Generalities must be avoided; instead, planners must provide actual statistics including race, age, disability, and gender, to support their assertions that the creation of largely market rate housing will make a given neighborhood more diverse and, where they claim it, more economically accessible.

Junk-‐‑in/Junk Out: the Failed RHEU Planning Process Because the process by which the RHEU was created was outcome-‐‑directed, slapdash, and deeply misleading, we regard the RHEU as fundamentally flawed. We also view the comment process with deep cynicism and believe it to be fundamentally illegitimate given how weighted towards further large-‐‑scale development the dialogue has been to date.

The RHEU and DEIR should have addressed how the city can fulfill the state’s mandated housing element separate and apart from the much larger, more ambitious program proposed. Because these documents do not set out the option of fulfilling the minimum state requirement, Berkeley residents have no means of comparing the proposed large-‐‑scale development with that actually required under the new state housing mandates. For example, residents may have preferred a housing plan that satisfies the state mandate but that allows additional units to be built in future if certain parameters have been met. By failing to set out a plan for meeting the minimum housing construction within the state mandate, the RHEU and DEIR fail to provide important benchmarking.

The RHEU promotes large-‐‑scale residential development on the basis that it will generate needed low-‐‑income housing, yet upon careful examination, little low-‐‑income housing is guaranteed.

Instead, planners have made aspirational projections as to who will be able to afford the projected units without fully disclosing the lack of guarantees that the units will indeed be available to lower income residents. Nor is there any meaningful analysis of the impact of the proposed development on existing lower cost housing. As noted above, the RHEU lacks actual demographic statistics for each impacted neighborhood. It also fails to provide an analysis of the 4,
cont.
5 24

Page 711 of 1385 ends

Page 715 ends

demographics of the newly created units. Absent this baseline data, its statements about impacts on existing and future housing stock are flawed and without proper foundation.

BAHA remains disheartened that the needs of existing Berkeley residents, who favor human-‐‑scale structures that blend with existing buildings and can house families and multi-‐‑generational cohorts, have largely been ignored in favor of dense high-‐‑priced developer specials for (largely) single commuters or students many of whom reside in Berkeley for only part of the year.

Berkeley’s recent housing building boom has largely been high-‐‑cost student housing. While the new $2000-‐‑ $10,000/month apartments may fulfill some UC students’ needs, this is hardly the kind of housing that the average Berkeley citizen can afford. Furthermore, most of these new apartments do not feature layouts and floor plans that can easily be occupied by a multi-‐‑ generational family. Instead, they are designed to be occupied by a specific type of person – a single student living alone or with other students. By developing units and marketing units to students (who necessarily will occupy their units only when enrolled as a student), the large out-‐‑ of-‐‑state private dorm developers are effectively doing an end-‐‑run around Berkeley’s rent control.

This practical reality is a far cry from the housing equity for existing and new long-‐‑term residents that Berkeley city planners are touting in the RHEU.

BAHA recommends that city planners go back to the drawing board. At a minimum they must:
• Provide a meaningful analysis of alternate sites for constructing housing slated to be built in RH-‐‑1 and other fire zones;
• Evaluate the constraints on housing overall including the existing, failing city infrastructure;
• Evaluate the impact of the proposed development on city infrastructure; • Evaluate the impact of building the proposed additional housing in areas where emergency evacuation is difficult and/or the existing fire risk is high; • Provide a thorough analysis of existing housing stock on a neighborhood-‐‑by-‐‑ neighborhood basis rather than relying on generalities; • Provide support, on a neighborhood-‐‑by-‐‑neighborhood basis, for their assertions that planned housing will make housing in each neighborhood more “equitable”; • Explain what “objective criteria” were used to identify the opportunity sites; • Identify the opportunity sites by address and describe the cultural and environmental impacts of developing at these addresses;
• Provide information about the proximity to landmarks, potential landmarks, and historic areas and the impacts on those landmarks of the proposed developments; • Be transparent as to the existence or lack of guarantees that any given proposed development will have low-‐‑income housing;
• Provide a plan for meeting the state mandated new housing so that citizens can better understand the costs and benefits of constructing more than the mandated units. 6 5,
cont
25

Page 712 of 1385 ends

Page 716 ends

Sincerely,
Leila Moncharsh
Leila Moncharsh
President, BAHA

Attachment

AS:fc

cc: Berkeley Mayor and City Council
Berkeley City Attorney
Berkeley Landmarks Commission
Berkeley City Attorney
Berkeley Mayor and City Council
Berkeleyside
Daily Planet

Page 713 of 1385 ends

Page 717 ends

Page 714 of 1385 ends

Page 718 ends

Page 715 of 1385 ends

Page 719 ends

Page 716 of 1385 ends

Page 720 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter B3
COMMENTER: Leila Moncharsh, President, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association DATE: October 25, 2022 (After close of public comment period) Response B3.1
This comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. This comment summarizes the comments responded to in responses B3.2 to B3.6 below.

Response B3.2
This Draft EIR analyzes the HEU as proposed and described in Section 2, Project Description. Impacts associated with wildfire and development in the VHFSZ are discussed in Section 4.17, Wildfire. As acknowledged in that section, impacts associated with wildfire, including impacts associated with emergency evacuation and exposure to pollutants from a wildfire, were found to be significant and unavoidable. The Draft EIR also considers an Alternative that includes no zoning changes in the R-1H district and concludes that wildfire impacts would still be significant and unavoidable under that Alternative (Alternative 2). The commenter does not provide information showing that the analysis in the Draft EIR is inadequate.

Response B3.3
Impacts associated with utility infrastructure are discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. As discussed in those sections, impacts related to stormwater, water, and wastewater infrastructure, related to the need for new and expanded infrastructure due to the proposed HEU and impacts associated with new or expanded infrastructure pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, were found to be less than significant. The commenter does not provide information showing that the analysis in the Draft EIR is inadequate.

Response B3.4
The comment is primarily related to the proposed HEU and not the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Impacts to historical resources are analyzed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. As stated in that section, three of the housing inventory sites are known to contain properties which are listed in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or designated City of Berkeley Landmarks, and therefore are considered historical resources. The Draft EIR also acknowledges that development under the proposed HEU could impact historical structures that are not yet known and concluded that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Response B3.5
This comment is related to the proposed HEU and not to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR analyzes the HEU as proposed, including the programs and policies contained in the HEU. Alternatives to the proposed HEU were considered, and a reasonable range of alternatives was analyzed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR as required under CEQA. 30

Page 717 of 1385 ends

Page 721 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Response B3.6
The comments mostly pertain to the proposed HEU, and do not address the environmental analysis or conclusions on the Draft EIR. Impacts related to infrastructure, emergency evacuation, and historical resources, which are mentioned in previous comments, were analyzed in the Draft EIR.

Please see responses B3.1, B3.2 and B3.3. Alternatives to the proposed HEU were considered and analyzed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, as required under CEQA.

Page 718 of 1385 ends

Page 722 ends

From: "adolfo c" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 1:16 PM
To: Horner, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: All Council <[email protected]>; Berkeley Mayor's Office <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Elelment DEIR for 2023-2031

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

October 15, 2022

To: Justin Horner, Associate Planner
Land Use Planning Division, City of Berkeley

cc: Mayor Jesse Arreguin and Berkeley City Council

Re: DEIR for 2023-2031 Housing Element

Dear Mr. Horner, et al:

First I want to thank the BNC for their important input and public comment regarding the Berkeley Housing Element for 2023-2031. I too agree and support their insight and constructive criticism regarding our city's housing mandate. Please, do the right thing for the actual people of Berkeley here and now.

The leadership of the Berkeley Neighborhoods Council (BNC) is concerned about the DEIR for the 2023- 2031 Housing Element. Our primary complaint is with the DEIR Impact POP-1 (Page ES-19): “ This EIR assumes full buildout of 19,098 residential units in Berkeley through 2031, which equates to a population increase of an estimated 47,443 residents compared to the existing population. However, growth resulting from the project is anticipated and would not constitute substantial unplanned population growth. This impact would be less than significant .“

Letter C1
1 32

Page 719 of 1385 ends

Page 723 ends

Berkeley is already one of the most dense Bay Area cities. Our high fire zones, liquefaction zones, and shoreline zones subject to sea level rise, limits suitable areas to build. BNC advocated for the City Council to appeal our RHNA allocation because it does not count University housing nor vacant properties that are brought back onto the market. We cannot support a DEIR that more than doubles this number.

We must have leadership that understands and supports and is working to properly manage our city's character and spirit, our livability and quality of life, mitigating our limited capacities and fulfilling our city's priorities to benefit those who live here now.

In agreement with the BNC's concerns and requests,
sincerely,

Adolfo Cabral
D-2, Berkeley

* * *
Berkeley Neighborhoods Council
Steering Committee
Dean Metzger
Shirley Dean
Janis Battles
David Ushijima
Meryl Siegal
Amiee Baldwin
Paola Laverda
Willie Phillips

2 3
33

Page 720 of 1385 ends

Page 724 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C1
COMMENTER: Adolfo Cabral
DATE: October 15, 2022
Response C1.1
Please refer to Response B1.1.

Response C1.2
Please refer to Response B1.2.

Response C1.3
Please refer to Response B1.3.

Page 721 of 1385 ends

Page 725 ends

From: Laura Klein <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 7:41 PM
To: Horner, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on Housing Element

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I am shocked at the proposed number of new housing units, more than double the RHNA numbers. This would increase the population of Berkeley by over a third. Where is the infrastructure we need for that kind of growth-public transit, parking, police officers, firefighters, schools? This is truly outrageous. And you are doing this without even getting the word out to the unsuspecting residents of Berkeley!

Laura Klein
Berkeley, CA 94703

Letter C2
1 35

Page 722 of 1385 ends

Page 726 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C2
COMMENTER: Laura Klein
DATE: October 15, 2022
Response C2.1
Impacts associated with population, infrastructure, transit, police, fire protections services, and schools are addressed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems; Section 4.14, Transportation; and Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation of the Draft EIR. As discussed in those sections, impacts were found to be less than significant. Parking supply and demand is not required to be analyzed under CEQA and is no longer listed in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G as a topic to be analyzed.

Page 723 of 1385 ends

Page 727 ends

From: Eric Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 11:46 AM
To: Horner, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Berkeley Neighborhoods Council <[email protected]> Subject: Re: DEIR Housing Element

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Horner,

As a Berkeley homeowner with young children and a long-term interest in our city's and region's future, I strongly support the vitality and fiscal resilience that 47,443 new residents will bring to Berkeley. I welcome the more dynamic commercial corridors and greater utilization of diverse transit options that more density brings. I encourage the Land Use Planning Division to do all it can to ensure that Berkeley remains forward-looking, climate-conscious, and responsive to the urgent housing needs of our most vulnerable neighbors.

Thank you,

Eric Johnson

On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 9:52 AM Berkeley Neighborhoods Council <[email protected]> wrote:

Please accept the attached comments for the DEIR for the Housing Element.

Berkeley Neighborhoods Council (BNC)
Check out our website for up to date information and resources:
berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com

Letter C3
1 37

Page 724 of 1385 ends

Page 728 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C3
COMMENTER: Eric Johnson
DATE: October 16, 2021
Response C3.1
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. The commenter’s suggestion is noted and is included for the decisionmakers’ consideration.

Page 725 of 1385 ends

Page 729 ends

From: Walter Wood <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 7:51 PM
To: Horner, Justin <[email protected]>; All Council <[email protected]> Subject: public comment on Berkeley Housing Element Draft Environmental Impact Report, due Oct 17, 2022

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

The Housing Element Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) appears to understate damage to neighborhoods and in particular damage to parking availability in Berkeley that would be caused by proposed zoning changes and excessive development in the name of "more housing." Berkeley needs to protect neighborhoods that value lower population density. State legislators should lose their jobs for passing laws that promote higher population density in residential areas where quality of life continues to be adversely affected by population increases. We do not need more people in Berkeley. For example, BART parking lots should remain parking lots, not be transformed into detrimental housing that increases crowding of people together.

Walter Wood
Berkeley, CA

Letter C4
1 2
39

Page 726 of 1385 ends

Page 730 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C4
COMMENTER: Walter Wood
DATE: October 15, 2022
Response C4.1
Please refer to response C2.1.

Response C4.2
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. The comment is included for the decisionmakers’ considerations.

Page 727 of 1385 ends

Page 731 ends

October 16, 2022
Justin Horner
Associate Planner
Land Use Planning Division
1947 Center Street
Berkeley, CA 94707

Subject: City of Berkeley 2023-2032, Housing Element Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report

Dear Mr. Horner:

I understand it, this 400 plus page complex document, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), is required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development to indicate how the city of Berkeley will meet the Rental Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals (8,934 residential units in designated income categories) assigned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) through 2032. The DEIR on page ES-2 clearly indicates that based on an inventory of existing sites that rezoning is not needed to meet the level of “deed-restricted affordable housing and economic and geographic diversity” as expressed by the RHNA goals. Therefore, a “buffer zone” of 10,164 new residential zones has been added that increases the need for units for lower income to moderate income households, bringing the total number of new residential units that must be constructed to 19,098, increasing the City’s population by some 47,000 new residents.

As a long-term resident, a former Mayor of Berkeley and a current member of Berkeley’s Disaster and Fire Safety Commission, my comments reflect my deep concern that this is far too much potential density. Berkeley is a small 8 to 9 square mile community that has almost no vacant land and fixed boundaries which do not allow expansion, and which further houses a State Constitutional entity – the University of California – which has its own land use authority. All of these factors and its existing development makes it currently one of the most densely populated areas in the East Bay. My comments follow:

First of all, The DEIR indicates that an additional “buffer zone” is introduced to achieve “No Net Loss” which you imply is due to SB 166. Yet, when a search for SB 166 is done, it reveals legislation that involves cannabis. Please supply a corrected reference.

The Notice of Preparation of the DEIR was introduced in January 2022 and does not provide sufficient information that to achieve the 19,098 new residential units goal, rezoning of the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R Zoning Districts will be needed. It does not indicate that the RHNA goal number did not count existing rooms in University Resident Halls, Co-Ops, or fraternities and sororities because they do not each have a separate bathroom. While a definition of such rooms was not provided there has been no real information provided to a community that faces this problem. Such rooms could possibly house some 6,000 students and are simply ignored as a housing resource.as the city of Berkeley chose not to appeal its RHNA assessment.

A decision that has resulted in displacement of lower income people and neighborhoods that Letter C5
1 2
3 41

Page 728 of 1385 ends

Page 732 ends

2 once provided stable housing for persons of color. Will the continuation of these policies, particularly in the South Side and Downtown continue the displacement effects and result in greater densities and further losses of racial and economic diversity within Berkeley? As the University continues to adhere to a policy of admitting more and more students and not providing housing on the core campus, student housing (exemplified by one kitchen and 5 separate bedrooms each with a bathroom which counts as just one unit) will be developed in the community that not only displaces residents as rents skyrocket, but the developer’s profits also increase substantially, and existing affordable rent-controlled units are destroyed. I did not see a discussion of this current scenario in the DEIR. Why? It’s what’s happening now and how will increasing development change this?
In addition, rezoning the various residential zones includes specifically mentioning the hillside overlay district or Fire Zone 2 to allow more development. This Fire Department has included Fire Zone 2 as a High-Risk Wildfire Public Safety Area. The area includes the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Zone (Hayward Fault) that has been called the most dangerous earthquake fault in the nation and the most likely fault in the East Bay to suffer a major earthquake. This area also contains officially recognized and mapped landslide designated areas and scores of narrow streets designated by address that was compiled by the city in 2015 which the DEIR does not mention. These streets not only currently impede emergency vehicle access and cannot serve as routes for both fire-fighting apparatus going east to fight a wildfire and evacuation routes for residents going east for their safety. After the 1991 wildfire that killed 25 in Oakland mostly from cars trapped by the fire, evacuation times were studied. Two hours to evacuate was cited as needed for safe evacuation, but since then wildfires have increased in frequency and intensity with fires jumping large areas in less than a minute. A former Berkeley Fire Chief has advised that the burn time from ridge to coast would be only one hour. Yet the DEIR maintains that deleting rezoning in the hillside overlay area would be meaningless due to SB 9. There is nothing that refutes the statement that increasing density in this area will simply expose more people to higher risk. That should not be tolerated in our Housing Element! Furthermore, the DEIR does not consider the areas that have been identified and mapped as Liquification Areas, most of which are in the eastern areas of West and South Berkeley, but some of which are in or near the Downtown. The time has come to consider these areas in the event of more than just a minor shake. What will be the effect of a major incident on buildings, and doesn’t this mean that the Building Code should be strengthen before new development occurs? I don’t believe that such analysis has even been done, and a text search of the updated Housing Element reveals no mention of “liquefaction.” Why is there a lack of such information in the DEIR?
The same is true of incorporating new high-rise buildings or renovation of such existing structures that allow for safe evacuation or residents in the event of a fire. One only has to read daily newspapers to understand the vulnerability of the residents and workers in high-rise structures when a fire occurs.

While the State Report on Sea Level Rise states that communities should plan for the worst case, the DEIR while recognizing that flooding might occur, relies on compliance with 3,
cont.
4 5
6 7
8 42

Page 729 of 1385 ends

Page 733 ends

3 permits, other regulations and the existence of impervious surfaces to negate consideration of other mitigations such as reducing development in identified areas. Current work being done at the University indicates that ground water plus rising sea level can impact infrastructure such as sewers to levels that will release gas from toxic contaminated soils under residences through hairline cracks around toilets. Such toxins would penetrate homes that would seriously affect the health of the residents. This information is missing from the DEIR.

The DEIR is also silent on the issue of allowing increased residential density nearby the locations where large amounts of toxic chemicals are stored or used, e.g., the hot asphalt on Virginia, ammonia at the Bayer plant which is to be substantially expanded and reported radioactive materials on the Berkeley Campus and at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Incidents have been reported at these sites in the past and again the DEIR does not deal with the impacts to residences nearby in the event of an accidental release of materials on site or which would occur during a wildfire off site or earthquake event. There is also reported to be a large pipeline of airport fuel with transects Berkeley from north to south near I-80. Why are these instances not considered in the DEIR in terms of nearby increased residential development? The DEIR does consider the need for additional police and fire facilities particularly in the event of the predicted increase of some 47,000 people. I do not know about any planned increase in police facilities but with 44 shootings this year in Berkeley and the recent incident near the UC Dorms there might well be such a request brewing. I do know that the Fire Department is seriously looking into a new training facility that may have to be located outside of Berkeley because of lack of current space within city boundaries. This information has been provided to the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission and the public. It should be mentioned in the DEIR not only because it is deemed necessary, but because of the potential possibility of increased response times to an increased population and the increase in height which will may require new equipment but increased construction costs to ensure fire safety. It is doubtful that the reliance on Measure FF funds will mitigate these problems to a less than significant level.

These issues need to be address and if not, why?
And there is the issue of adequate open space. Berkeley has a policy of 2 acres per 1,000 population. The DEIR says this would be reduced to 1.69 acres per 1,000 population if residential development is increased. However, the DEIR dismisses this loss as not important since Berkeley residents are near to Tilden, McLaughlin East Shore State Park and Claremont Canyon. This misses the point that Berkeley is home to UCB student as well as families and we have always valued open space park facilities that serve children as well aa adults and that, these open spaces that make neighborhoods livable, should be within walkable distance from homes. tNot having such spaces is saying families with children should live elsewhere. Berkeley is not he same as New York City, and we want to provide space for both homes and neighborhood parks. The updated Housing Element does not do this, but the subject can’t just go away because the DEIR does not reflect this need.

The DEIR mentions People’s Park in a way that states that the open space there will not be cleaned up and remain open but will instead become space for students who will be living in a UC Dorm constructed on the site. This doesn’t bode well for either open space for the 8,
cont.
9 10
11 12
43

Page 730 of 1385 ends

Page 734 ends

4 community which includes students or for the recognition of already identified historical resources on the site. Is this the city’s position? Questions were raised in a September meeting by the Planning Commission as to what constituted an historic site and was not answered by you or the Rincon Consultant representative. Berkeley has a considerable number of historic resources in all of the indicated rezone areas, but there in no indication of how this will be considered within the proposed new development. These areas should not be simply pushed aside.

If, in response to the updated Housing Element and its DEIR, the recommendations are adopted and the rezoning and other actions proceed and, if the development does not occur at the full predicted level, for some reason, residents will be left with the potential hanging over their future, making Berkeley a target for incompatible development here and there no matter what.

So why not develop a large map, showing all of the areas where development should be reduced or denied all together, mentioned here and I am sure in other comments, and from that develop the criteria for new development that would include both the denied units from new RHNA goals as well as the units that will be reclaimed hopefully using funds from Vacancy Tax which is on the November ballot that are more likely to occur. Berkeley residents want more affordable housing that is well designed to last and contribute to a community in which all can flourish. I believe we can find such a balanced response what responds to the known challenges, and which also provides more affordable housing.

Sincerely,
Shirley Dean

12,
cont.
13 14
44

Page 731 of 1385 ends

Page 735 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C5
COMMENTER: Shirley Dean
DATE: October 16, 2021
Response C5.1
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. The commenters opinions are noted and are included for the decisionmakers’ considerations.

Response C5.2
The citation in the Draft EIR is correct. On September 29, 2017, Governor Brown signed into law 15 bills related to housing, including SB 166. SB 166 amended the “No Net Loss Law” (Government Code Section 65863) to ensure that agencies maintain an ongoing supply of housing construction sites for residents of various income levels throughout the entirety of a housing element planning period. This requirement was effective on January 1, 2019.1 Response C5.3
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the Notice of Preparation must be filed immediately after deciding that an EIR is required and should include sufficient information describing the project and the potential effects to enable public agencies to make a meaningful response. The Notice of Preparation for the proposed HEU states that “the City’s zoning and other land use regulations must accommodate between approximately 9,750 and 10,500 new units,” and satisfied the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines. The commenter’s opinions about how the City is proposing to satisfy the RHNA requirements are noted and will be considered by City decision- makers but do not pertain to the Draft EIR.

Potential impacts with respect to displacement are discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR. As noted in this section and throughout the Draft EIR, the proposed HEU is a policy document and does not directly result in the construction of specific development projects that would result in the loss of housing. The proposed HEU is designed to encourage additional housing in accordance with State law. The Draft EIR acknowledges that specific future projects may result in displacement; however, projects that involve demolition or elimination of dwelling units would be subject to BMC Chapter 23.326 and other City and HEU policies which would reduce displacement impacts by ensuring that demolition of housing units would not be materially detrimental to the housing stock and that assistance would be provided to occupants of housing units to be demolished. Therefore, the direct effects associated with displacement from future development under the proposed HEU were found to be less than significant. Impacts associated with diversity within Berkeley are not effects on the environment for the purpose of CEQA. The focus of CEQA is on physical environmental impacts, such as impacts of a project on air quality, water quality, or habitat. In general, socioeconomic effects are beyond the scope of the CEQA environmental review process unless a causal link can be established between anticipated socioeconomic effects of a proposed action and adverse physical environmental impacts (CEQA

1 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/sb-166-final.pdf 45

Page 732 of 1385 ends

Page 736 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Guidelines Section 15131(a), CEQA Section 21082.2). Nevertheless, these issues are important policy considerations that are addressed in the proposed HEU.

Response C5.4
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. The cumulative scenario evaluated throughout the Draft EIR considers development proposed under the University of California, Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan, which includes the provision of student housing on university properties. See also Response C5.3.

Response C5.5
Impacts associated with fault rupture and landslides are discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils.

As acknowledged under Impact GEO-1, the proposed HEU involves zoning modifications in the R-1, R-2, and R-2A districts, portions of which are near the Hayward fault. As shown in Figure 4.6-4 of the Draft EIR, landslide risk throughout the majority of Berkeley is low; however, localized areas of instability exist throughout the Berkeley Hills in the eastern portion of the city. While risks associated with fault rupture and earthquake-induced landslides are present in the city, with compliance with existing regulations and requirements, the impacts were found to be less than significant. Impacts associated with wildfire and emergency evacuation are discussed in Section

4.17, Wildfire, of the Draft EIR. As acknowledged in that section, impacts associated with emergency evacuation during wildfires were found to be significant and unavoidable. As discussed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the EIR, if the R-1H district remains single family residential, SB 9 would be applicable in that zoning district. SB 9 applies to parcels zoned for single family residential development, and requires agencies issue ministerial approval for projects that propose up to two residential units on any parcel within a single-family residential zoning district if the development meets specific objective criteria. It would be speculative to determine how many eligible parcels would utilize the provisions of SB 9, so the Draft EIR was conservative in its analysis and assumed a maximum development scenario, so as not to miss or underestimate potential environmental effects.

Response C5.6
Impacts associated with liquefaction are analyzed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR.

As shown on Figure 4.6-3, most of the city is within medium, low, and very low susceptibility to liquefaction. The western-most portion of Berkeley does contain a small area with “High” liquefaction potential; however, no proposed inventory sites are within the area and the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts and Southside do not overlay the “High” liquefaction zones. A small portion of the MU-R district is within a “High” liquefaction zone. Full build-out of the proposed project would increase population, structural development, and infrastructure that would be exposed to these hazards. However, proper engineering and required compliance with CBC and other City requirements would minimize the risk to life or property associated with liquefaction hazards. These impacts were found to be less than significant.

Response C5.7
As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation and Section 4.17, Wildfire, future projects would be required to comply with basic building designs and standards for residential buildings as mandated by the Berkeley Fire Code, under BMC Chapter 19.48. New residential 46

Page 733 of 1385 ends

Page 737 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report projects allowed by the proposed HEU would also be reviewed for compliance with these requirements and compliance with other building and safety regulations several times during different phases of project development. Several tall structures are already located in the city, and the Fire Department has adequate equipment to serve such structures and requires associated measures as part of the permitting process related to fire-safety features such as on-site equipment and adequate water pressure. The increase in height of development would not result in the need for new or expanded public service facilities.

Response C5.8
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, future development would be required to obtain a State Water Resource Control Board Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for projects that disturb one acre or more of land. Future projects would also be required to comply with regulations outlined in the Berkeley Municipal Code and the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, which would ensure the implementation of Best Management Practices to avoid adverse effects associated with stormwater runoff. Furthermore, future development would be required to implement low-impact development measures and on-site infiltration as required under the provisions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, which would reduce water pollution from stormwater runoff compared to existing conditions. Compliance with State and local regulations would reduce impacts on water quality to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Draft EIR found that there was not a need for additional mitigation beyond compliance with existing regulations.

The commenter does not provide evidence to support the statement that rising sea levels could result in the release of gas from contaminated soils. Inventory sites and rezone areas are not located near the San Francisco Bay or in areas directly prone to sea level rise inundation, as shown in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR (Figure 4.9-1). 2 Section 4.8, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR acknowledges that future development could occur on contaminated sites. If dewatering is determined to be necessary during construction, it may result in the discharge of potentially contaminated groundwater to surface water and may degrade the water quality of surrounding watercourses and waterbodies. However, future development projects would be subject to existing regulations to treat effluent and, if water is determined to be contaminated, the water must be collected and either treated or disposed of according to waste discharge requirements. Specifically, future development projects would be subject to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R2-2012-0060, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge or Reuse of Extracted Brackish Groundwater, Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Resulting from Treated Brackish Groundwater, and Extracted Groundwater from Structural Dewatering Requiring Treatment (Groundwater General Permit). The Groundwater General Permit requires dischargers to obtain an Authorization to Discharge, treat effluent to meet water quality-based effluent limitations, and comply with the Monitoring and Reporting Program.

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

R2-2012-0060. If required, future housing development sites would be remediated in accordance with existing regulations such that contamination does not result in unacceptable risk to future residents.

2 https://www.kqed.org/science/1973624/maps-see-which-bay-area-locations-are-at-risk-from-rising-seas 47

Page 734 of 1385 ends

Page 738 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Response C5.9
The Draft EIR analyzes impacts associated with residential development on or near hazardous materials sites and impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials in Section

4.8, Hazards, and Hazardous Materials. The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion (BIA v. BAAQMD) confirmed that CEQA is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project. However, facilitating housing in areas near existing commercial and industrial development could bring additional residents to areas where hazardous materials are used or transported or where there has been past use of hazardous materials, which could potentially increase exposure of residents to hazardous materials. As stated in the Draft EIR, there are many regulations in place to ensure the safe handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and these regulations are overseen by the City of Berkeley’s Toxics Management Division. New development that uses hazardous materials would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State of California, and City of Berkeley related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Additionally, compliance with the General Plan’s Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element and the Environmental Management Element policies, including Policy S-15 (Construction Standards), Policy EM-12 (Education), Policy EM-13 (Hazardous Materials Disclosure), and Policy EM-15 (Environmental Investigation), would reduce the potential for accidental exposure and hazards associated with the use and disposal of hazardous materials.

In addition, as discussed in in Impact HAZ-1 in Section 4.8, Hazards, and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, it is acknowledged that construction activities on contaminated sites could potentially release hazardous materials which could pose a risk to the environment and human health.

However, future projects would be subject to regulatory programs such as those overseen by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which require applicants for development of potentially contaminated properties to perform investigation and cleanup if the properties are contaminated with hazardous substances.

All future projects requiring discretionary review would also be subject to the City’s Standard Condition of Approval outlined under Impact HAZ-1 (pages 4.8-15 – 4.8-16), which would require documents as applicable to the project such as environmental site assessments, soil and groundwater management plans, building materials surveys, and hazardous materials business plans.

Response C5.10
The Berkeley Fire Department is considering the need for a new training facility, but no site has been selected and site-specific details of development of a facility are not reasonably foreseeable at this time, nor would it be a direct result of the HEU.

Response C5.11
The City’s 1997 Master Plan included a goal of 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents; however, that goal is not included in the City’s current General Plan, which supersedes the City’s 1997 Master Plan. The City does not have a current policy to achieve 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The project’s impact on parks and recreational facilities is discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation. The Draft EIR acknowledges that development that would occur during the planning period of the proposed HEU and would increase demand for parks and recreation.

However, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines does not require an analysis of the City’s adequate 48

Page 735 of 1385 ends

Page 739 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report provision of parks and recreational facilities to serve the project. Instead, it requires an analysis of the potential for adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities, or substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities. Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, includes an analysis of potential physical deterioration and found that physical deterioration would not occur such that significant physical environmental impacts from the provision of new or expanded facilities would occur. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Response C5.12
As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, a plan to develop the

2.8-acre People’s Park site into student housing and 1.7 acres of open space has been approved by the University of California. This is considered in the Draft EIR. Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR defines a historical resource pursuant to federal, State, and local standards. The City has provisions in place for projects that would involve the demolition of non-residential buildings over 40 years old that require use permits or administrative use permits to be forwarded to Landmarks Preservation Commission for review. The City’s zoning project application process also has submittal requirements for zoning projects that include the proposed demolition or substantial change to any building more than 40 years old subject to environmental review to complete and submit a historical resource evaluation. The Draft EIR acknowledges that development under the proposed HEU could impact historical structures and found that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Response C5.13
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR.

Response C5.14
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. 49

Page 736 of 1385 ends

Page 740 ends

From: Toni Mester <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 5:51 PM
To: Horner, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: HEU DEIR

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Justin Horner, Associate Planner, City of Berkeley and all concerned From: Toni Mester, 2431 Tenth Street
RE: Comments on the DEIR for 2023-2031 Housing Element
October 17, 2022
Please respond to the following queries by topic, which are found in several sections of the Housing Element DEIR.

Student Population: How does the City count the student population, including the increase required by University of California, toward the RHNA goals?
State density bonus: please explain in the relevant sections how the state density bonus is calculated in areas other than the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan and whether the City’s alternative calculation approximates the standard of dwelling units per acre that is assumed in state law. In what ways does the City’s methodology alter the outcome or differs from the standard of dwelling units per acre? Does unit size alter the outcome in the City’s methodology?
Density bonus BMRs: Please explain how the number of below market rate units determined by the application of the state density bonus interacts with the 20% inclusionary rule and the affordable housing mitigation fee.

Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee: What is the current rate and when was it adopted? What was the old rate? Are all the funds received from imposition of the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee deposited in the Housing Trust Fund? How have the Fund monies been used since the current rate change? Since its adoption, how much has each approved project donated to the housing trust fund? Please list by project with a total. What has been the response of housing developers to the increase in the fee? Have the number of larger units with three or more bedrooms increased after the increase in the fee? Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Exemption: Why are GLAs exempt from the fee? In a legal opinion included in our appeal of 2435 San Pablo Avenue (attached), attorney Jessica L. Blome, Senior Associate Attorney, Greenfire Law, wrote that the fee was established by resolution and not by ordinance, which is contrary to case precedent and the state government code. What is the City attorney’s response to this opinion? Given that the mitigation fee might have been established incorrectly and that developer response has been to lessen or avoid the fee, would it not be in the City’s interest to revisit the mitigation fee, consider an imposition by square footage rather than by unit, and to pass the new fee by ordinance?
Letter C6
1 50

Page 737 of 1385 ends

Page 741 ends

Group Living Accommodations: Has the City adopted standards for GLAs including co-living, dormitories, single room occupancy hotels? Such standards might include a manager’s office, size of bedrooms, size of group rooms, appliances in group kitchens, cleaning schedules, and features that ensure food security and safety. Which standards are currently adopted and which have yet to be adopted? How does the City count bedrooms towards the RHNA? Efficiency units: Has the City adopted an efficiency unit ordinance as required by state law (CHSC 17958.1) that includes alternate standards than those found in the building code for efficiency units? Absent such an ordinance, have substandard efficiency units been counted as units for purposes of the RHNA? Besides 2435 San Pablo Avenue, what building plans, approved or otherwise, feature efficiency units different in size, appliances, and other standards than those in the building code? Is it the intent of the City to count those toward the RHNA?
Objective Standards: What other objective standards could be applied besides those listed? Is the interface between higher and lower density areas simply a matter of aesthetics? How is it beneficial to the affected property owners to provide for building step-downs from higher to lower heights that are now voluntary by the developer? What general plan goals support sunlight on gardens and private and public open spaces as well as privacy? Are there general plan and climate action goals that support protecting sunlight on existing and potential solar panels? What local and state laws and programs support solar panels on private homes? What are the energy benefits of such solar arrays? Is there a difference in the efficacy of energy production between older and new solar technologies? If a taller building shadows existing solar panels, who is responsible for updating the old panels to more efficient technologies? Since the City has approved the taller building, should not the City compensate the homeowner for the expense?
Complete Streets: What does the Alameda County design initiative of the San Pablo Avenue Corridor encompass? Is it confined to the design of the street itself or does it include objective standards such as building set backs and step-downs? What features will be determined by the project and which fall within the jurisdiction of the City? What are the reasons that the Mayor cites the San Pablo Avenue Corridor project to justify delay of zoning reforms?
Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance: what features of the NPO have been incorporated in the BMC? Since the NPO was passed by initiative, can those features be changed without submitting such changes to a vote of the people according to state government code? How does the NPO affect the DEIR alternatives?
Hydrology, creeks and flooding: Please provide a creek map of the City and a history of creek flooding.

For example, Derby and Parker Street flooding of streets, yards, and basements due to Derby Creek, lower Hearst due to Strawberry Creek, and the lower Potter basin due to back up during storms? What flooding is due to the antiquated structures of Aquatic Park? How could upgrades in Aquatic Park prevent such flooding? How will bay rise and increase in downpours due to climate change affect Aquatic Park and its environs including housing in the Strawberry and Potter watersheds? Hydrology, pollution: Please summarize the recent history of pollution of Aquatic Park, its frequency, likely source, and organisms found. How does dumping of waste from homeless encampments and RV parking on the streets effect the City’s neighborhoods and housing needs? 2 1,
cont
3 51

Page 738 of 1385 ends

Page 742 ends

Date: September 11, 2020

To: Toni Mester

From: Jessica L. Blome, Senior Associate Attorney

RE: 2435 San Pablo Ave.

The Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) gives the City Council authority to adopt an affordable housing impact fee by resolution, which “shall be imposed on the development of new rental housing in Berkeley, subject to limitations set forth in this Chapter and any additional limitations set forth in the Resolution.” (BMC §22.20.065(C).) The BMC does not exempt Group Living Accommodations from the requirement to pay the affordable housing impact fee. (Id.) The BMC defines “Group Living Accommodation” as “a building or portion of a building designated for or accommodating Residential Use by persons not living together as a Household.” (BMC § 23F.04.)
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 68,074-N.S. on June 27, 2017, which set the fee at $37,000 per “new rental housing” unit. (See Berkeley Resolution No. 68,074-N.S., ¶ 1.) “New rental housing” includes “Group Living Accommodations, except for those categories that are currently exempt pursuant to BMC Section 23C.12.020.B.” (Id. at ¶ 3.) The Council singled out Group Living Accommodations because it wanted to limit the fee for co-living arrangements, “such that one-half the fee shall be imposed on each bedroom.” (Id.) The BMC expressly delegated authority to Council to set the fee by resolution, so the Council had authority to set fee policy in this way. However, with the resolution, the City also attempted to exempt certain Group Living Accommodations from the requirement to pay the affordable housing mitigation JESSICA L. BLOME
2550 Ninth Street, Suite 204B
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 900-9502
Email: [email protected]
www.greenfirelaw.com

Page 739 of 1385 ends

Page 743 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

fee altogether, which violates state and local requirements for amending the BMC. (See BMC §23C.12.020.B (exempting “Dormitories, Fraternity and Sorority Houses, Boarding Houses, Residential Hotels, or Live/Work Units”).)
Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, “ordinance” and “resolution” are two distinct methods by which local governments can act. (City of Sausalito v. County of Marin (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 550, 565 [hereinafter City of Sausalito].) An “ordinance” is a local law which is “adopted with all the legal formality of a statute.” (Id.) A “resolution” is usually “a mere declaration with respect to future purpose or proceedings” of the government entity, such as the setting of a fee schedule or penalty matrix. (Id.; see also 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. City of West Hollywood (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 621, 625.) When a state statute requires local legislative action by ordinance, action by “resolution” does not satisfy the statutory requirement “under any circumstances.” (Id.) Moreover, resolutions adopted without the “formality” required of an ordinance cannot morph into an ordinance. (City of Sausalito, supra, at 566; see also Pinewood Investors, Inc. v. City of Oxnard (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 1030, 1037-1038 (invalidating the City sewer fee, which was unlawfully adopted by resolution when state law required the fee be adopted by ordinance).) An ordinance is a law of the state, a resolution “is not.” (Id.) Accordingly, courts frequently void city actions taken via resolution if the city was required by law to take such action via ordinance. (See e.g. Id.; see also San Diego City Firefighters, Local 145 v. Bd. of Admin. of San Diego City Emples. Ret. Sys. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 594, 608-09 (voiding a city resolution terminating a resolution related to retirement funding because the city charter required the city to adopt an ordinance for “all provisions related to the city’s retirement program”).)
The California Government Code authorizes the legislative body of any county or city to adopt zoning regulations by ordinance in order to “regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, including agriculture, recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, use of natural resources, and other purpose.” (Gov’t Code § 65850(a) (emphasis added).) Government Code, section 36931, et seq. sets forth the specific 53 2

Page 740 of 1385 ends

Page 744 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

provisions a municipality must follow to duly enact a zoning ordinance. (Id. at § 36931, et seq.) For example, each ordinance or amendment must be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after the ordinance is first read at a city council meeting. (Id. at § 36933.) The proposed ordinance or amendment must be read a second time at a duly notice council meeting and does not go into effect for thirty days after its final passage. (Id. at § 36937.) Zoning restrictions that do not comply with the Government Code are not valid. (City of Sausalito, 12 Cal.App.3d 550, 565 (invalidating the Marin County general plan because the Board of Supervisors adopted the plan by resolution instead of ordinance, as required by the Government Code.)
Consistent with the Government Code, the BMC obligates Council to adopt a new ordinance if it wants to amend an existing ordinance to be “less restrictive” than the provision it replaces. (BMC §23A.20.010, et seq.; See also id. at §23A.20.070(B).) There can be no doubt that the adoption of an exemption to an ordinance is “less restrictive” than the ordinance itself.

The Council’s attempt to exempt certain Group Living Accommodations from BMC §22.20.065 by resolution is, therefore, invalid, and the affordable housing mitigation fee applies to this project.
54 3

Page 741 of 1385 ends

Page 745 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C6
COMMENTER: Toni Mester
DATE: October 16, 2021
Response C6.1
These are comments on the proposed HEU, not on the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR.

Response C6.2
A map of the creeks in the city is provided on Figure 4.9-1 in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. In addition, a map of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated flood zones is provided on Figure 4.9-2 of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Impact HYD-4 in Section 4.9, most new development would not be in areas subject to flood hazards. For new development promoted or facilitated by the proposed HEU that would be in flood-prone areas, future development would be designed to withstand flooding hazards in accordance with state and local regulations. Further, FEMA flood maps are regularly updated and if flood zones change due to sea level rise, regulations related to development in flood zones would apply to future development in those areas. Therefore, although development under the proposed project in limited areas of Berkeley could place housing and other structures within FEMA-designated Flood Hazard Areas, potential flood impacts would be less than significant. Impacts associated with stormwater runoff and flooding are discussed under Impact HYD-3 in Section 4.9 and were found to be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations. The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion (BIA v. BAAQMD) confirmed that CEQA is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project. Therefore, specific impacts related to sea level rise affecting future developments are not discussed in the Draft EIR. Further, there are no housing inventory sites or rezone areas adjacent to the San Francisco Bay or Aquatic Park. Please also see Response C5.8, regarding impacts related to sea level rise. As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed HEU would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions and would not contribute to a cumulative GHG impact such that it would substantially increase impacts related to climate change.

Response C6.3
This comment is about the potential for water pollution and water quality impacts from existing sources in Berkeley and not about the potential for impacts under the proposed HEU. The development of new housing would not result in more or larger encampments of unhoused people.

The information requested by the commenter is not related to the EIR’s analysis of the impacts of the proposed HEU, and this is not a comment on the adequacy or content of the environmental analysis in Draft EIR.

Page 742 of 1385 ends

Page 746 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

1 Preparing the HEU is an exercise to fulfill the State of California mandated Housing Element requirement, nonetheless to deny the impact of adding 19,098 dwelling units and the increase in population to fill these units denies everyone within the City of Berkeley whether visiting or living her
e permanently the necessary mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.

The response of “less than significant impact” throughout the DEIR is irresponsible at best or blatant disregard for the health and life of residents at worst.

There are actions to be taken and acknowledging the impacts of increased density carries the possibility of mitigating, reducing those impacts and driving necessary adaptation.

As you review my comments for all that I caught and pieces I missed, think about Babcock Ranch in Florida https://babcockranch.com/. Babcock Ranch was designed with housing to withstand hurricanes, roads were designed for flooding from massive storms. During hurricane Ian, Babcock Ranch residents never lost power, their homes are intact, their schools are now shelters for residents from surrounding cities/areas not designed to survive massive hurricanes.

Denial left Floridians in the path of hurricane Ian in a wasteland of demolished housing and commercial buildings, but not Babcock Ranch. Babcock Ranch exemplifies recognizing the dangers of massive storms and building to withstand them. https://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/americas-first-solar-powered-town-did-no t-
lose-power-ian-hurricane (This is one of many reports on Babcock Ranch)

You are challenged to acknowledge the impacts of adding 19,098 housing units, covering land with hardscape, interrupting habitat and all that comes with density and change your focus to how do we make this work to the best of our ability.

The denial evident throughout this document of the affect of the increase in housing and population filling these un
its carries with it, impacts to the health and life expectancy of residents, air quality, wildlife, safety of all forms of life living or visiting Berkeley.

We are living in a climate crisis. More and more areas of the planet will become unlivable. We probably won’t see a population increase of over 47,000 in the next eight years, but we can expect population growth through migration in the future unless Berkeley too succumbs to catastrophe through massive earthquake or drought and the lack of planning that was necessary to adapt in advance to survive.

To the preparers of this HEU DEIR, your role is to see the consequences and possibilities. Thus far the preparers of this HEU DEIR have failed.

Staying stuck in the current frame of “impact would be less than significant” in all areas except Wildfire where the response is impact would be significant and unavoidable may save your job or consulting gig temporarily, but it will not be a plan for Berkeley for the future.

Letter C7
56Page 743 of 1385

Page 747 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

2 Aesthetics
Impact AES-4. Development facilitated by the proposed HEU would create new sources of light or glare that could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. However, Berkeley is already largely built out with sources of light and glare throughout the city and development would not substantially add to existing light and glare. With compliance with existing regulations, this impact would be less than significant.

Response: Exposure to night light is associated with increased health and disease risks. This little promotional article describes the impact on sleep and health https://www.sleepfoundation.org/bedroom-environment/light-and-sleep there are more studies on sleep and light which you can easily find if you look. So while the impact on views may not matter, the impact of night light on residents does and that can be mitigated through education and light blocking shades over windows. Such mitigation will have a spillover positively affecting the life cycles of wildlife including the insects that become food for birds, riparians
and other species.

Responsible night lighting standards must be required to reduce the impact of light pollution. https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/17524598/2021/14/2#:~:text=Artificial%20light %20at%20night%20is,observed%20declines%20in%20insect%20populations.

And, there is a spillover here besides reducing the threat to biodiversity. Night lights with motion detectors and times reduces the drain on energy when solar energy is not available.

Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. The proposed HEU would not conflict with the control measures within the 2017 Clean Air Plan, and VMT increase from the project would be less than the project’s project population increase. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Response: Housing on transit corridors sounds like a reasonable conclusion that fewer persons will be traveling by single occupancy vehicles, however, the growth of lyft, uber and the convenience of like services are expanding while transit use has dropped precipitously. This an unfortunate
tread. https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-having-devastating-effect-on- public-transportation-study-2019-1

With the impact of the pandemic BART ridership has not recovered. Ridership is down dramatically. Cuts to bus lines and frequency of service further exacerbate this problem. While the HEU cannot solve this problem the mitigation that must be advised is to increase transit frequency and connectiveness between entities.

Biological Resources
1 2
57

Page 744 of 1385 ends

Page 748 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

3 Impact BIO-1. Development facilitated by the proposed HEU may result in direct or indirect impacts to special-statu
s species or their associated habitats, and impacts to nesting birds. This impact would be less than significant.

Response: When mature trees are cut down, especially when those mature trees are native and replaced with little non-natives this impacts nesting not just in the immediate year, but far into the future. The impact on habitat takes decades to recover if it ever recovers and we don’t have decades. Rather than denying the impact the mitigation needs to include every effort to preserve of trees and designing around them and using permeable paving to save tree roots.

There is so much that can be done to save trees and habitat. By writing this off as less than significant obliterates those opportunities. Just leaving space, setbacks, between buildings can connect habitat corridors. Setback with native plantings that supports leaf eating species needs to be a mitigation that is required.

Urban settings are a critical piece of biodiversity and are ever more important as open land is gobbled up for food production with mono-plantings. The fact there Berkeley is filled with non- native plantings instead of being an excuse to do nothing needs to be a call to action.

As another action to preserve trees take heed to this excerpt from my Activist’s Diary for the week ending September 24, 2022 published in the Berkeley Daily Planet https://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2022-09-25/article/49979?headline=A-BERKELEY- ACTIVIST-S-DIARY-Week-Ending-September-24--Kelly-Ha
mmargren
Last week I wrote about asphalt in tree wells in front of BODYROX. It is always a benefit to pay attention and this time it was a benefit to be wrong as that lead to an extended email exchange with Scott Ferris, Director of Recreation, Parks and Waterfront. It turns out the product around the trees only looks like asphalt and is instead a product that is flexible and porous protecting tree roots and letting water run through.

Ferris didn’t say which of the two manufacturers Rubberway https://sustainablesurfacing.com/pervious-pavement or Fl exi-pave
https://apaicorp.com/kbi.htm Berkeley is using, but the product used at 3120 Eton in 20 17 to
save a majestic Redwood from having its roots cut to replace damaged concrete is a much closer blend in color to a concrete sidewalk (see photo in google maps https://goo.gl/maps/H9G3E1zg6J7iDt7VA). It has a nice cushy feel when walking on it.

Impact BIO-4. Implementation of the proposed HEU would not substantially impede the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors with compliance with existing and proposed regulations.

This impact would be less than significant.

Response: This is where the mitigation needs to be setbacks with native plantings as described above. Birdsafe glass needs to be a requirement for all glass and windows from the ground up. 3 4
58

Page 745 of 1385 ends

Page 749 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

4 The bird safe ordinance has not passed, the outcome is unknown. This is not a done deal as implied in the HEU. It needs to be a strong requirement. Berkeley is in the migratory bird corridor. While potential for mitigation bird collisions with glass is described in the expanded paragraphs, it is not carried over into a requirement. Nearly 3 billion birds have disappeared, were lost in North America between 1970 and 2020. That one piece of knowledge should be connected to mitigation measures, but instead the answer is less than significant. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/north-america-has-lost-ne arly-3-billion-
birds-
180973178/#:
~:text=Grassland%20birds%2C%20such%20as%20meadowlarks,abundant%2C%2 0lost%20one%20billion%20individuals.

Impact BIO-5. Implementation of the proposed HEU would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. This impact would be less than significant.

Response: Prese
rving Oaks and expanding the planting of oaks throughout the city with new construction is the mitigation answer.

Energy
Impact E-2. The proposed HEU would be consistent with the State plans and General Plan policies related to energy efficiency and utilizing renewable energy. This impact would be less than significant.

Response: Biomass fuels, burning trees is not green and no amount of greenwashing can make destroying forests to burn trees as biomass fuels can make this practice green. It is abhorrent that any intelligent person has fallen for this propaganda. And it should be below the dignity of the preparers to include it in the HEU.

Berkeley has thus far been unsuccessful in gaining architectural design and construction beyond the minimal requirements. Green buildings is a myth. There are great opportunities here and the challenge and requirements need to be stepped up dramatically. Berkeley ought to be a center for passive homes and building to building living challenge. Berkeley couldn’t even get it together to protect solar on existing structures. This should be an embarrassment.

There is nothing I have found that addresses the heat island impact from increased density of buildings and added hardscape. Heat Island impact is huge.

This is an excerpt of an email sent to the DRC, ZAB and others on heat island effect and cool walls

Living in Berkeley, we have benefited from a mild climate and the cooling fog that tempers summers and have not needed to consider heat island effect or color as anything more than a design element, however, the climate in Berkeley is changing just as it is around the world. The 4,
cont.
5 6
7 59

Page 746 of 1385 ends

Page 750 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

5 new York Times featured San Francisco's disappearing fog in the September 14, 2022 article. in https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/14/climate/san-francisco-fog.html

As it turns out, the color and surfaces on buildings does have a significant impact on heat absorption including within the building, the building exterior surface and the surrounding environment from the radiating of heat from buildings and other hard surfaces. This is known as urban heat island effect. The radiation of heat from buildings and hard surfaces does not stop when the sun goes down. All the heat absorbed by buildings during the day continues after the sun goes down creating microclimates of warmer nights which in extreme heat events when people need cool nights to recover exacerbates risk of heat-related illness and death.

The first reference and quote supporting the impact of dark surfaces which absorb heat rather than reflect it is from the 2019 update of the Berkeley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan pages 180- 181.
https
://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-2019.pdf

"Urban Heat Island Effect Extreme heat events can be further exacerbated by the urban heat island (UHI) effect, through which densely-built cities like Berkeley experience higher temperatures in comparison to surrounding more rural areas. Factors contributing to the UHI effect include: • A rel
ative lack of vegetation; • Reduced air flow; • An abundance of hard, dark surfaces—such
as buildings, [emphasis added] streets, cars and sidewalks— which absorb heat rather than reflect it. These surfaces also slowly release that absorbed heat throughout the night, contributing to warmer nighttime temperatures as well. The UHI effect can also worsen air quality (particularly ground-level ozone) in urban environments.The UHI effect increases heat-related illnesses and fatalities, particularly after two to three days of extreme heat.

Vegetation helps mitigate the UHI effect through evaporative cooling, making urban tree cover, parks, and green roofs essential to combatting the UHI effect. Green roofs, cool roofs, and cool pavements (light-colored materials that reflect, rather than absorb, solar energy) reduce the UHI effect, and can also lower cooling loads in buildings. Urban vegetation and increased urban tree cover reduce temperatures, with co-benefits such as improving air quality and providing
needed shade (for buildings and people) during heat events."

The Local Hazard Mitigation plan using the data available at the time of adoption states on page 168,

"Extreme heat events will increase in the Bay Area due to climate change in intensity, length, and frequency. By the end of the century, Bay Area residents may average six heat waves annually, which will average a length of ten days120. Extreme heat threatens critical infrastructure, air quality, and public health. The urban heat island effect, where built surfaces absorb and retain heat causing higher nighttime temperatures, can exacerbate those health risks."

7,
\cont.
60

Page 747 of 1385 ends

Page 751 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

6 As background, the Federal Mitigation Act of 2000 signed into law by President Clinton requires state and local governments to prepare the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, a comprehensive risk reduction analysis, and to update the plan every five years.

Comprehensive Some of the FEMA relief in the event of a disaster is tied to having a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. President Carter established FEMA in 1979.

The purpose of hazard mitigation is to implement and sustain actions that reduce vulnerability and risk from hazards, or reduce the severity of the effects of hazards on people, p
roperty, and the environment. Mitigation actions include both short-term and long-term activities which reduce the impacts of hazards, reduce exposure to hazards, or reduce effects of hazards through various means including preparedness, response, recovery, and resilience measures.

Berkeley Lab Heat Island Group has been studying how cool walls, walls on the exterior of buildings that reflect sunlight can decrease envelope surface temperature and diminish heat conduction into the occupied space. This lowers surface, radiant, and air temperatures inside an unconditioned building, and decreases cooling load (heat that must be removed from the occupied space to maintain setpoint), annual cooling energy use, and peak power demand in a conditioned building. With the possible exception of thermochromics, CEMs [Cool Envelope Materials] also tend to increase heating load (heat that must be added to the occupied space to maintain setpoint) and annual heating energy use in climates that have a heating season.10 Direct benefits and penalties. The “direct” cooling benefits and heating penalties of CEMs— meaning those attained by reducing the building’s net radiative heat gain—have been assessed in over 30 countries and regions. https://heatisland.lbl.gov/coolscience/cool-walls Berkeley Lab projects on cool walls https://heatisland.lbl.gov/projects/cool-walls

Berkeley Lab Heat Island Group Web page lists Urban Heat Island resources https:
//heatisland.lbl.gov/resources/Guides and there are many other sources that can be accessed through an internet search.

American Chemical Society on cool walls and impact on heat island effect https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b00732

Scientific research demonstrates color, reflective qualities on exterior wall surfaces on buildings does matter. Where as cool roofs are more widely accepted, cool walls on multi-story buildings with greater surface area than roofs carry greater impact on heat island effect.

Within this frame of responsibility and action, please reconsider exterior color and surfaces of buildings in relation to reflecting rather than absorbing heat in response to a future of a warming climate with unpredictable potentially catastrophic climate extreme heat and weather events.

Geology and Soils
7,
cont.
61

Page 748 of 1385 ends

Page 752 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

7 Impact GEO-1. A portion of Berkeley is located within the Hayward Fault zone. Development facilitated by the proposed HEU is subject to seismically-induced ground shaking and other seismic hazards, including liquefaction and landslides, which could damage structures and result in loss of property and risk to human health and safety. However, implementation of State-mandated building standards and compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act Earthquake Fault Act, the CBC, the Berkeley General Plan’s policies and actions, and the BMC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Response: Note the California map of earthquake zones of required investigation. The website
for the map is imbedded in the screen shot. As is written with the response to wildfire, the mitigation is not to build on the fault and in the slide zones as these are right in the middle of the High Fire severity Zones. These zones for expansion of density need to be off the table. It is magical thinking that adding density in these areas will not have a significant impact.

8 62

Page 749 of 1385 ends

Page 753 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

8 Green = Liquefaction
Yello
w = Fault
Blue = landslide areas
HEU includes developments in areas of liquefaction, fault line, slide areas. The Berkeley Hills are also the high fire zones with urban wildland interface.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-2. The proposed HEU would not conflict with GHG reduction goals and policies in the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, or the City’s CAP. This impact would be less than significant.

VMT is already addressed under Air Quality. Increasing density, adding population will increase GHG emissions with aggressive mitigation. It is not enough to ban new extensions of natural gas. That is not the end of greenhouse gas emissions.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-5. The proposed HEU would not result in physical changes that could interfere with or impair emergency response or evacuation. Therefore, the project would not result in interference with these types of adopted plans. This impact would be less than significant.

Response: Emergency response and evacuation are absolutely impacted. More vehicles, more traffic, diversions and street closures in attempt to manage the increasing density will slow emergency response. Adding density in high fire severity zones. A concern of the fire department is they don’t have the equipment to put out fires in taller buildings. Mitigation needs to include tall buildings need to come with fire equipment to handle events in those buildings, if that means a surcharge for the purchase of the equipment then that needs to be written in as a mitigation in adding these dwellings.

Hydrology and water Quality
Impact HYD-2. Future development facilitated under the proposed HEU would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table.

Further, implementation of low impact development measures and onsite infiltration required under the C.3 provisions of the MRP, and compliance with the Berkeley Municipal Code would increase the potential for groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant

Response: Adding density will absolutely add hardscape with water runoff and that must be addressed in required mitigations. Permeable paving needs to be installed at every opportunity in street replacement as along Channing between Milvia and MLK JR Way and in sidewalks, driveways, pathways, patios, literally everywhere.

This is easy. First recognize the impact, then give the solutions. Why is this so hard.

8,
cont.
9 10
11 63

Page 750 of 1385 ends

Page 754 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

9 There are multiple solutions with p
remade permeable concrete blocks as on Channing, with
brick streets as on Allston between Milvia and MLK Jr. Way and in permeable laid sidewalks like at 3120 Eton and space left between concrete pavers.

Impact HYD-3. Development under the proposed HEU would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of future development sites, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding or exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. Impacts related to drainage patterns would be less than significant.

Response: It is true that Berkeley has already culverted many of the creeks. There is a worldwide movement to daylight creeks and funding to do it. Think about what a different City this would be if at the same time density is being increased, creeks are being daylighted adding open space, habitat, supporting ecosystems and at the same time reducing heat island effect and giving refuge to the City’s expanding population. Daylight creeks and build around them.

Look to the world for examples. https://www.americanrivers.org/conservation- resource/daylighting-streams-breathing-life-urban-strea ms-communities/

Population and Housing
Impact POP-1. This EIR assumes full buildout of 19,098 residential units in Berkeley through 2031, which equates to a population increase of an estimated 47,443 residents compared to the existing population. However, growth resulting from the project is anticipated and would not constitute substantial unplanned population growth. This impact would be less than significant.

Response: To w
rite that adding 47,443 residents would be less than significant is laughable. The point is to plan for population especially for unexpected influxes of large numbers of climate refugees.

Impact POP-2. Implementation of proposed project would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing. The proposed project would facilitate the development of new housing in accordance with State and local housing requirements, while preserving existing residential neighborhoods. This impact would be less than significant.

Response: People will be displaced as older buildings are torn down for new construction. To discount this impact as insignificant is just blatant disregard for existing residents. This displacement will result in larger numbers of homeless who will not have housing they can afford.

Public Services and Recreation
Impact PS-1. Development facilitated by the proposed HEU would result in an increase of population and buildings within Berkeley. The projected population increase would increase 11,
\cont.
12 13
14 15
64

Page 751 of 1385 ends

Page 755 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

10 demand for fire protection services and potentially create the need for a new or altered fire station. However, compliance with policies in the 2020 General Plan would reduce impacts related to fire service facilities to a less than significant level.

Response: The general plan doesn’t solve the problem of needing more fire stations, more equipment, more personnel, plus the difficulty of getting from one place to another especially with increasing traffic and especially when the needed facility for an emergency sits ouside of the city boundary as in emergency medical care.

Impact PS-2. Development facilitated by the proposed HEU would result in an increase in the City’s population. The projected population increase would increase demand for police protection services and potentially create the need for new or altered police service facilities.

However, compliance with policies in the 2020 General Plan would reduce impacts related to police facilities to a less than significant level.

Response: Reiterating a policy does not make it a plan.

Impact PS-3. Development facilitated under the proposed HEU would result in an increase in population in Berkeley, resulting in the need for additional or expanded school facilities.

However, Government Code 65995 (b) would require funding for the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset impacts from new residential development. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Response: The problem here is do existing school sites have space for expansion. Berkeley as we all know is constricted in land mass, surrounded by water, wildland and neighboring cities. If the population growth is from a significant number of families with children, the n schools will
be needed. If much of the population growth is from single persons without children and college students, then impact on schools may be insignificant, however, there does need to be an assessment of BUSD possibilities for expansion at existing sites.

Impact PS-4. Development associated with the proposed HEU would increase the population of Berkeley and the use of existing parks and recreational facilities. However, additional recreational opportunities are available adjacent to the City and donation of parkland pursuant to the Quimby Act would be required prior to occupancy of individual projects. No plans for the expansion or construction of new parks or recreational facilities are anticipated. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Response: Berkeley needs more Parks, The more people that are added the more parks that are needed. For projects to count little balconies and rooftop patios as fulfilling the open space requirement needs to end. The investment needs to be directed to expanding parks and daylighting creeks.

Transportation
15,
cont.
16 17
18 65

Page 752 of 1385 ends

Page 756 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

11 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.

Response: Berkeley needs to do so much more to make streets safe. Really planning neighborhoods for streets without cars. Closing down streets to through traffic as was done during the peak of the pandemic was really nice. Ending it demonstrates a lack of commitment to safe streets.

Utilities and Service Systems
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 capaci
ty exists to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. impacts would be less than significant.

Response: Depending on the rate of sea level rise (SLR) the wastewater facility used by EBMUD could be in deep trouble. It is underwater at 6 feet. If the Twaites Glacier collapses within five years as recently projected, that is three feet of SLR. This is also trouble for the sewer system.

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.

Response: California is in drought with some cities running out of water. This is an older article, but it tells the tale of copping with drought and water shortages. https://time.com/6187823/california-drought-cape-town-water-crisis/ We cannot count on an endless supply of water. The city and state would do well to require purple pipes to capture water for non-potable uses. Why in heaven’s sake
are toilets still flushed with drinkable water?
Adaptation through insistence of “less than significant impact is yet one more opportunity for mitigation lost in the HEU.

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.

Response: This is nonsense. Berkeley is already under penalty for wet weather releases.

19 20
21 22
66

Page 753 of 1385 ends

Page 757 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

12 Wildfire
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. - No feasible mitigation measures have been identified.

This response “this impact would be significant and unavoidable” is pinnacle of irresponsibility.

Response: The Berkeley hills will burn again, we just don’t know when weather, drought and a spark will converge into catastrophe so while this threat looms, the topography can’t be changed, the HEU must take adding density in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones 2 and 3 identified by the City of Berkeley off the table. Adding density in the hills needs to stop perio d.

Ending building in the hills is a hot button political issue. Still, that should not stop the preparers of this DEIR from taking the responsible step by taking adding density in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones 2 and 3 off the table.

Probably our best hope to end expansion in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones 2 and 3 is for insurance companies to stop insuring buildings in high fire zones, since no one else seems to have the fortitude to state the obvious.

(As a personal note, I do not live in the hills, I do not live in fire zones 2 &3)

Cumulative Impact: In and near Berkeley, the VHFHSZs are located largely along the WUI borders with the hilly northwestern areas. 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, areas of which fall within the VHFHSZ. Development within this area 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 a 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 cumulative considerable. - No feasible mitigation measures have been identified.

Response: The HEU must take adding density in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones 2 and 3 identified by the City of Berkeley off the table. Adding density in the hills regardless of who or what entity does it needs to stop period.

23 24
67

Page 754 of 1385 ends

Page 758 ends

Response to Housing Element DEIR for 2023 – 2031
Comment Submission Deadline October 17, 2022 at 5 pm

13 In conclusion, the HEU could and should be a planning tool for adaptation, not an exercise in deniability of population and development impact.

Kelly Hammargren
Berkeley Resident

Page 755 of 1385 ends

Page 759 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C7
COMMENTER: Kelly Hammargren
DATE: October 17, 2022
Response C7.1
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines does not require analysis of the impacts of artificial light on human health. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, development facilitated by the proposed HEU would redevelop facilities such as parking lots, which when replaced by buildings, may reduce nighttime sources of light where parking lots are more brightly lit during nighttime than most buildings. Future development would be congruous with nearby light sources, and light from windows on residential units would mostly be filtered or obscured by window coverings. That said, estimating how much light would be produced from interior sources, when this light would be visible, and for how long is speculative. Much of the light spillover from residential lighting could be blocked by adjacent structures or trees. Future development would be required to comply with BMC Sections 23.304.100 and 23.304.130 which require that exterior lighting be shielded to avoid light spillover onto adjacent residential properties. Further, in accordance with Senate Bill 743 (California Public Resources Code Section 21099) passed in 2013, impacts on aesthetics from residential or mixed-use projects in transit priority areas are no longer considered significant impacts on the environment. As shown on Figure 4.1-1 in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, most of Berkeley is within a transit priority area and therefore light and glare impacts for future development projects in those areas would be less than significant. Impacts from exterior lighting and effects on views would be less than significant.

Response C7.2
Please see Response B1.2, regarding evaluation of all vehicle modes including ride share. While the commenter’s opinions related to transit services are noted, transit operations are outside of the purview of the proposed HEU.

Response C7.3
As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, future development would be required to comply with the city’s Tree Ordinance (BMC Chapter 6.52) which prohibits the removal of coast live oak trees, as well as General Plan Policy EM-29 which requires the City to maintain and enhance street and park trees to improve the environment and provide habitat. On-going implementation of the policy through site-specific design review and use permits would reduce potential impact to locally significant trees to a less than significant level. Future development would also be subject to the Berkeley General Plan policies requiring the protection of biological resources. Specifically, Policies EM-1 and EM-3 which create a framework for environmental policy and encouraging agencies, businesses, and households to focus on environmental management and sustainability. Policy EM-5 encourages construction projects to be sited, designed, constructed, and operated to minimize present and future impacts on the natural environment.

In addition, as discussed in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR, Berkeley’s residential neighborhoods are not wildlife corridors. One essential connectivity area has been mapped along the eastern border of the City of Berkeley related to mountain lion movement. This corridor would not be affected by the 69

Page 756 of 1385 ends

Page 760 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report proposed HEU. Further, the proposed project would not involve development that would affect creeks and creeks, which are protected by the City’s creek protection regulations (BMC Chapter

17.08). Impacts to species and wildlife were found to be less than significant without implementation of mitigation.

Response C7.4
As stated in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, the City of Berkeley is adjacent to a designated essential connectivity area, but the City of Berkeley is not within, and does not function as, a significant regional or local wildlife movement corridor. Bird strikes can occur in a migratory bird corridor or in areas adjacent to foraging, roosting, or nesting habitat for avian species. If development occurs adjacent to such habitat well utilized by land-based birds, and there are direct lines of sight between the habitat and proposed buildings, then the reflection of trees in windows may attract birds and such reflections may result in window collisions. The commenter does not provide new information or evidence related to the analysis completed in the Draft EIR, including any evidence that bird strikes constitute a substantial effect on any specific species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species, or that use of standard windows has substantially interfered with the movement of native resident or migratory species. Accordingly, requirement for use of bird-safe glass was therefore not included as mitigation in the Draft EIR. However, the City is currently considering a bird safe glass ordinance.

Response C7.5
As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, under the City of Berkeley’s Tree Ordinance (BMC Chapter 6.52) the removal of coast live oak trees is prohibited for any reason, unless such removal is deemed necessary for public safety by the City Manager. With compliance with the City’s Tree Ordinance, removal of coast live oak trees would not occur without City approval and the impact would be less than significant. The commenter’s recommendation for preserving oak trees and planting additional oak trees is noted, but does not change the findings or conclusions in the Draft EIR.

Response C7.6
The proposed project does not involve the use of biomass fuels or burning trees and the impact analysis in Section 4.5, Energy, does not assume biomass fuels would be used for consistency with state energy policies. Future development would be subject to the applicable California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) energy efficiency requirements at the time of construction, as well as the City’s building electrification ordinance.

Response C7.7
Please refer to Response B1.3, regarding the evaluation of heat islands.

Response C7.8
Please see responses C5.5 and C5.6, regarding seismic hazards and liquefaction zones. 70

Page 757 of 1385 ends

Page 761 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Response C7.9
Impacts associated with GHG emissions from future development under the proposed HEU are analyzed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. As shown on page 4.1-17, the project’s 1.7 MT of CO2e per service population per year would not exceed BAAQMDs interpolated 2031 target of 3.7 MT CO2e per service population at the plan-level. Therefore, the impact was found to be less than significant.

Response C7.10
As discussed in Section 4.17, Wildfire, of the Draft EIR, 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 a condition to prepare a Transportation Construction Plan (TCP) subject to City review and approval.

Implementation of a TCP would limit the extent to which development would impair or physically interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation procedures during the planning period of the HEU. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 4.17, impacts related to emergency evacuation were found to be significant and unavoidable. In response to this comment, information about the City’s Standard Condition of Approval for a TCP has been added to the discussion under Impact HAZ-5 in Section 4.18, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Revisions to the Draft EIR are shown in Chapter 5 of this document. Please also refer to Response C5.7, regarding wildfire hazards.

Response C7.11
The proposed HEU does not include infrastructure improvements such as street replacements. As stated throughout the Draft EIR, the proposed HEU is a policy document and does not involve direct physical changes to the environment. It is acknowledged that buildout under the HEU could increase impermeable surfaces in Berkeley. However, as explained in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, future development projects proposed under the HEU would be required to adhere to state and Berkeley Municipal Code requirements related to green infrastructure and Low Impact Development (LID) requirements to reduce stormwater runoff.

Response C7.12
Buildout under the proposed HEU is not anticipated to involve culverting or daylighting creeks.

Response C7.13
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Response B1.1.

Response C7.14
Please refer to Response C5.3, regarding population projections.

Response C7.15
As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, impacts associated with the need for new or expanded fire department facilities were found to be less than significant for several reasons including: necessary compliance with the Fire Code and review of future 71

Page 758 of 1385 ends

Page 762 ends

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report development by the Fire Department, replacement of older buildings that are not constructed to today’s more stringent levels of fire-safety regulations, additional funding to the fire department through Measure FF, as well as implementation of General Plan policies. As stated in Section 4.13, there are no plans to expand fire facilities based on HEU buildout at this time. Should the Berkeley Fire Department and the City determine that new or expanded facilities are needed to provide additional fire protection services in the future, the construction of the new fire station would not be anticipated to cause additional significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the Draft EIR, because the potential future facility would likely be developed as infill on one of the inventory sites.

Response C7.16
As discussed in Section 4.3, Public Services and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, impacts related to the need for new or expanded police facilities were found to be less than significant for several reasons, not just implementation of General Plan policies. In addition to adherence to General Plan policies, which would ensure that there is adequate staffing to meet existing service demands, police protection service levels would also continue to be evaluated and maintained by BPD in accordance with existing policies, procedures and practices as development occurs over the lifetime of the HEU.

Future housing developers would be required to submit a service questionnaire to the BPD in conjunction with their applications to ensure that police protection services are available to serve the proposed housing development. Similar to Response C7.15, if the Berkeley Police Department and the City determine that new or expanded facilities are needed to provide additional police protection services in the future, the construction of the new police station would not be anticipated to cause additional significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the Draft EIR, because the potential future facility would likely be developed as infill on one of the inventory sites.

Response C7.17
As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, there are no planned improvements to add capacity through expansion of school facilities at this time. As discussed in the Draft EIR, existing laws and regulations would require funding for the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset impacts from new residential development, with the provision that SB 50 imposes limitations on the authority of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development. This impact would be less than significant.

Notwithstanding the above, expansion of existing facilities would be subject to project-based CEQA review.

Response C7.18
This is not a comment on the adequacy or content of the EIR. Please refer to Response C5.11, regarding parks and recreation facilities.

Response C7.19
This is not a comment on the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, the EIR is a Program EIR covering city-wide impacts of the proposed HEU at a programmatic level. Significant impacts to transportation facilities were not identified. Site-specific 72

Page 759 of 1385 ends

Page 763 ends

Comments and Responses

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report potential safety impacts would be addressed during review of individual future projects.

Nonetheless, the comments are noted and will be considered by City decision-makers.

Response C7.20
Impacts related to utilities are discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, and were found to be less than significant. Although sea level rise may require changes and upgrades to infrastructure systems in the coming decades, EBMUD, the agency that manages wastewater treatment facilities and much of the conveyance system, did not provide information to the City or comments on the Draft EIR that would indicate a significant impact in this regard.

Response C7.21
As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, 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 a multi-year drought, EBMUD may require substantial reductions in water use by customers and development facilitated by the proposed HEU would be subject to the same drought restrictions that apply to all EBMUD customers. Additionally, compliance with CALGreen would require a 20 percent reduction in residential indoor water use that would lower potential water demand, and future development would also be subject to the CCR concerning water-efficient landscapes (Division 2, Title 23, CCR, Chapter 2.7, Sections 490 through 495). Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance would encourage water conservation for new development and in landscaped areas. Impacts were found to be less than significant without the need for additional mitigation.

Response C7.22
Impact UTIL-3 is related to solid waste, which is a different topic than the commenter appears to address (stormwater infrastructure). As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, the proposed HEU would not result in the need to expand the capacity of EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant and would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco RWQCB. During wet-weather conditions, additional flow could potentially exceed pipeline capacities and create overflow. However, 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.

Response C7.23
As discussed in Section 4.17, Wildfire, of the Draft EIR, impacts associated with the proposed project were found to be significant and unavoidable. The comment that development should be prohibited in fire hazard zones is noted. The commenter does not provide new information or evidence showing that the analysis in the Draft EIR is inadequate.

Response C7.24
Please refer to Response C7.23.

Page 760 of 1385 ends

Berkeley City CouncilJanuary 18, 2023

Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023