Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023

From: Virginia Browning <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 4:58 PM
To: Horner, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: DEIR Berkeley 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.

Hello Mr. Horner and all,
I've carefully read the summary of the DEIR and most of the whole statement.

I have some questions:

1. Given that other than unhealthy land use (including increasing climate damage) requires a 40% use of an area as greenspace, I don't see that addressed in this document. How is any real crucial climate-mitigation being addressed here? The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that in developed countries (and you have I think incorrectly assessed Berkeley as a highly urban setting, which it is not, though it is in a "developed country," that to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and try to stave off further damage, the most environmentally positive course is to protect and promote the building of small and rooftop solar energy, NOT to add to damage by creating more concrete towers. I don't see this alternative addressed. Why is this alternative or some version of it not being addressed?

2. See the end of the previous paragraph for this question on a realistic alternative

3. from the DEIR "
middle- and moderate-income households is what they call middle above to encourage a mix of dwelling types and
sizes, housing for middle- and moderate-income households, and increase the availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes to reduce displacement risk for residents living in overcrowded units or experiencing high housing cost burden. :

QUESTION: IS IT NOT A FLAWED METHODOLOGY THAT makes the above assumption, given housing trends all across the country (and world for that matter) whereby fewer and fewer entities own more of our country's housing everywhere, particularly where denser building has driven up land values so that only those with wealth can afford to buy, and that it is, in fact, this that has driven most people from their homes?

4. Southside housing seems to have not only no real provision for adequate greenspace (even given the Quimby possibility, which is not adequate), but seems to allow for completely inadequate and psychologically as well as physically unhealthy set-backs on building.

5. from the report "
meet the City’s RHNA with the required buffer

QUESTION
I assume you don't mean trees and greenspace, but where is that addressed here? Fauna is mentioned twice, flora once. Ecological needs, psychological crowding that occurs without adequate greenspace and trees is not addressed.

Here are some important scientific needs for trees. Where are they addressed? 1 2
Letter C8
3 4
74

BART comment 5-30-22

Dear Councilmember Kesarwani, Mayor, and other councilmembers,

I'm writing to beg you to attend to a few more things when planning for the housing at North Berkeley BART. I have done some hard research on this so I hope you'll read it.

I'm starting with trees and greenspace. When we see the canopy around us now, we strongly sense how important it is. More extensive scientific research than you may imagine has been done showing the crucial importance of trees in cities. Climate change absolutely mandates that we don't write this off lightly. But even more than that, to lose as much green as these proposals seem to be doing (yes, I have research showing that too) is a tragedy of epic proportion. Please read on to see that this is not an exaggeration.

Berkeley is now, especially near this BART station, human-scaled, livable, a joy to visitors and residents.

Our green cities of the future need to be designed to benefit human (and non- human) residents equitably. Is that what is being done here?

You may think you know all this, but I'm asking you to just go through the list here. Each item is backed up by extensive research linked at the end.

Significant greenspaces in cities and particularly trees have many benefits: they cool cities, including hot city streets by releasing water vapor, sequester carbon, reduce energy usage, remove air pollutants, filter stormwater, slow stormwater 75

runoff, provide habitat for some animals, make people happier, encourage active healthier activities, including walking, provide an economic value for communites.

Trees and vegetation can reduce risk: dampen ambient noise, improve air quality, cool over-heated urban centers, and be a food security solution. “Safe streets” research and scientific evidence reveal vegetation benefits concerning city trees and transportation safety.

Crime, public safety: more science findings show a strong relationship between urban vegetation and crimes, aggressive behavior, and safety.

While there can be an implication of vegetation as a screen for criminal activity, the evidence is fairly overwhelming that more good than harm in the purview of public safety results from increased well-placed vegetation.

As just one of many examples in this linked report, trees can provide a sense and a reality of more “eyes on the street.” There are many other benefits in this realm: https://depts.washington.edu/hhwb/Thm_Crime.html

Quality of Life: including trees, parks, gardens, and natural areas – enhance quality of life in cities and towns. The experience of nature improves human health and well-being in many ways.

Social and cultural strengths: Urban green spaces can provide a neutral space within which people come together, social interactions occur (that include people from different backgrounds), and relationships or partnerships take form.

Mental health and function: Both visual access and being within green space helps to restore the mind’s ability to focus. This can improve job and school performance, and help alleviate mental stress and illness. Work and learning places that incorporate or are located near nature can help remedy mental fatigue and restore one’s ability to focus on tasks. The result can be better performance in the work place and classroom.

Place attachment and meaning are particularly relevant when considering issues of urban development and community-building. Attachment and meaning emerge from a variety of experiences and situations, and are often related to parks, green spaces, and natural areas.
76

Green local economies: economic benefits includine increased taxes for cities, and shoppers spend more in areas with trees.

Scientific research shows being surrounded by birds can make you happier.

I haven't even mentioned the endangered status of pollinators and food. I hope you understand this. It's covered above in “risk” I think.

Healthy Trees, Healthy Lives Research: Take care of the forest, and it will take care of you. As research is being conducted and becoming available, findings reinforce what much of the urban forestry community already knows — that trees have a positive impact on human health. Check out research on why Healthy Trees make Healthy Lives.

Cities need green spaces that are well designed, creatively delivered, accessible to all, and managed and maintained with appropriate resources to ensure long- term quality and availability.

Beyond Trees and Greenspace
Economics: Berkeley and many world-wide communities suffer from national economic policies leaving them on starvation diets relative to their needs, creating a situation in which localities cut off their own legs to survive. Much more inclusionary housing is absolutely needed, and climate abuse is very real, but those who are honest (as in one surprisingly well-researched study linked here, among others) will admit hoped-for tax and other revenue is one of the highest priorities for building these projects. Yes, building on BART is slightly different, posing differing challenges and opportunities. Still this is relevant.

Thank you,
Virginia Browning,
Berieley CA

77

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C8
COMMENTER: Virginia Browning
DATE: October 17, 2022
Response C8.1
Effects associated with GHG 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; therefore, no mitigation measures were required. As discussed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, as required by CEQA (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a)), the range of alternatives considered included alternatives that would avoid or reduce the significant impacts associated with the proposed HEU. No significant GHG impacts were identified in the Draft EIR, and none were identified in the alternatives included in Section 6. Finally, Berkeley is an urban area; CEQA Statute Section 21071 defines an urbanized area as “An incorporated city that…has a population of at least 100,000 persons.”
Response C8.2
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR.

Response C8.3
As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, an implementation program of the proposed HEU is the Southside Zoning Modification Project, which proposes zoning changes intended to increase housing capacity and production to better meet student housing demand in the Southside through changes in zoning parameters, including building heights, building footprints (including setbacks and lot coverage), parking, ground-floor residential use, and adjustments to the existing zoning district boundaries. The exact modifications have not been determined, but the EIR conservatively assumes an additional 1,000 housing units in the Southside associated with the zoning changes. Please also refer to Response C5.11, regarding parks and recreation facilities.

Response C8.4
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR.

Response to Attachment
The attachment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. 78

From: Anthony Campana <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 5:00 PM
To: Horner, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: Berkeley Draft Environmental Impact Report, 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.

Thank you for considering and responding to the comments below:

1. The alternatives presented in the Draft EIR are insufficient to establish selection of the Housing Element Update as presented. The three alternatives presented include only no-build and partial no-build options. No positive/additional alternatives are presented or considered. The City should add and evaluate alternatives that provide additional rezoning near transit. One such alternative that the City should consider is increasing allowable heights and relaxing zoning as required within one half mile of BART stations to permit construction of 7-story residential buildings. I am confident that this alternative, if included as it should be, would be found to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative due to reduced Vehicle Miles Travelled, energy use, and health impacts relative to the Housing Element Update as proposed.

2. 3. The analysis of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access in the Draft EIR does not sufficiently consider the placement of Opportunity Sites along major roads. For example, Table 4.2-6 states that the proposed Housing Element Update is consistent with Bicycle and Pedestrian Access because "most housing inventory sites are generally located near or along transportation corridors served by Class II and Class III bicycle lanes, which would encourage the usage of bicycles and reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles." In fact, most sites in the inventory identified by the City are located along high-injury corridors, dangerous streets where Class II and III bike lanes are insufficient, and most of the length of these streets, including San Pablo Avenue, Sacramento, MLK, and University, does not have bike lanes or adequate pedestrian crossing infrastructure. The Draft EIR should consider street safety impacts of the Opportunity Sites identified, relative to a superior alternative which focuses development in accessible areas near major transit stops.

Berkeley Resident

1 2
Letter C9
79

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C9
COMMENTER: Anthony Campana
DATE: October 17, 2022
Response C9.1
As discussed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, alternatives considered included ones that would avoid or reduce the significant impacts associated with the proposed HEU. Because no significant VMT, energy, or GHG impacts of the proposed HEU were identified, alternatives specifically targeted to reduce VMT, energy, or GHG impacts were not analyzed.

Response C9.2
The EIR is a Program EIR covering city-wide impacts of the proposed HEU at the programmatic level.

It would be speculative to attempt to quantify individual project-level effects on non-motorized safety until the City receives design plans for specific developments. 80

1 From: Virginia Browning <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 5:12 PM
To: Horner, Justin
Subject: computer crash DEIR comments continued
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.

Hello Mr. Horner et al,
I'm sorry my computer crashed when I was trying to send my previous comments.

I have some additional ones I hope you will consider.

Transportation to high-density areas seems to cancel out any need for other environmental concerns in several areas of the report. What about considering this alternative:

Given that 40% of healthy livable areas need to be tree-covered or green-covered, for health and for climate mitigation, and given that folks should be growing some of their food locally to reduce trips elsewhere (VMT) - what about a policy that prioritizes public transit to NON-urban and LESS-URBAN areas as well as just to "get out of town" to find adequate recreation, which so many human beings still need to do, even more in these concrete jungles?

I hope you will add these questions to my comments. I know they're arriving a few minutes past 5, but as I say, my computer crashed.

Thank you,
Virginia Browning
Berkeley Ca
1 Letter C10
81

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C10
COMMENTER: Virginia Browning
DATE: October 17, 2022
Response C10.1
The comment proposes an additional alternative for analysis but does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Responses C8.1 and C9.1.

82

1 From: Virginia Browning <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 5:20 PM
To: Horner, Justin
Subject: DEIR p.s. last idea
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.

Whether you can officially add this to the comments or not, no one ever talks about different types of public transit - not just mostly
-empty buses that go on regular schedules.

People schedule Uber and Lyft and Taxi rides. We should be able to schedule shared smaller shuttles that don't run empty VMT. With these alternatives, we don't need to pretend to make things ecological by creating heat islands of massive concrete structures with the assumption that big buses need to go only to big buildings. We need more gr
eenspace. People will still use VMT to get OUT of these crowded noisy ugly heat traps.

Thank you again,
Virginia Browning
Berkeley
1 Letter C11
83

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C11
COMMENTER: Virginia Browning
DATE: October 17, 2022
Response C11.1
The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. 84

Letter C12
85Page 772 of 1385

86

1 87

1, cont.
88

89

2 90

2, cont.
91

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter C12
COMMENTER: Barbara Robben
DATE: No Date
Response C12.1
The comment does not address that physical environmental effects and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed HEU for issue areas such as biological resources, air quality, infrastructure, recreation, water supply, transportation, and earthquake are discussed throughout the EIR, including in Sections 4.1, Air Quality, 4.3, Biological Resources, 4.6, Geology and Soils, 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, 4.14, Transportation, and 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts related to these topics were generally found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. The comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR.

Response C12.2
Construction of a desalination plant or water treatment plant is not a part of the proposed HEU, which is a plan to accommodate housing, and the Draft EIR does not identify a need for new or expanded facilitates such as a water treatment plant. This comment does not provide specific comments on the analysis completed or conclusions provided in the Draft EIR.

92

Public Hearing Comments

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 4 Public Hearing Comments
Verbal comments received at the public hearing (Planning Commission, September 7, 2022) from members of the public are transcribed below. Each transcribed comment has been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenters has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify the number of the comment (Response PC.1, for example, indicates that the response is to comment PC.1).

Comment PC.1
I understand the impacts that that you've described-- the unmitigable impacts--now many of which exist today, you know, related to emergency response, evacuation, wildfire, landslide, etc. Under historical resources there was no specific resource identified, but there was a reference to buildings over 40 years old. Is that number relevant to determining historic resources? How did? Where did 40 years come from? And is that used in in trying to assess those impacts? Response PC.1
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 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 requiring 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.

Comment PC.2
The following up, then, is in that scenario where something has identified, or the impact that you're describing, would that be where somebody wanted to modify that historic building to add it additional units, or some activity that might the damage the historic structure, is that the thinking? Response PC.2
The commenter is correct that the EIR assumes that future development could involve modification or demolition of a historic structure. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, 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. Future development on those sites under the proposed HEU could impact existing known historical resources. Further, the Draft EIR also acknowledges that development under the proposed HEU could impact historical structures that are not yet identified. Therefore, overall impacts to historical resources were found to be significant and unavoidable.
93

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Comment PC.3
I mean, this this this 40 years is not something that you know, we're focusing on tonight. But I you know, because Brad raised it that I did want to comment on it I mean, I would say in some other procedure we should revisit that year, because I also balked at that, having someone who recently did a remodel in their house; reason I had to do a historic analysis of the house for the city, because it was older than 40 years old, and I think that this is not the venue I know to change that, but to my mind, 40 years seems way too short for something like that, and you have to go through a whole procedure--I'm blanking on the name, the city has guidelines on how you fill out the historic you know, historic issues with the house--and frankly, it's about I actually think it's sort of put in place as a way to sort of put curbs on development. Because if you identify even a previous resident who became famous, that was reason to raise a flag which might get in the way of doing an addition on your house, which has nothing to do with you. So I think it's something to flag I just had. I could not comment on that. Thank you.

Response PC.3
This commenter’s opinions about the City’s procedures for the evaluation of potential historical resources are noted. This comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR.

Comment PC.4
I had a follow up to the same thing as well. I guess I’m trying to understand, because the way it's written in the EIR it's just very broad and it seems like we don't know, so therefore it could be a huge problem, or it could be nothing. So my question was on the potential sites that are listed--or all of the housing units, whatever the 3 categories are --many of those, has it been studied for each of those sites that there are buildings on those sites and the majority of those sites are over 40 years old, and that's why, it's an issue. I just want to understand that piece.

Response PC.4
Please refer to Response PC.1 and PC.2. In addition, as explained in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, there are a number of inventory sites that contain structures over 40 years old and therefore may be eligible to be considered historic. Therefore, overall impacts to historical resources were found to be significant and unavoidable.

Comment PC.5
But I just want to make sure I’m understanding: does that mean then, that of the sites that are listed, if this I mean, there are two unavoidable impacts, right? One is that we were affecting many historic buildings by development, and the other impact is, if there are so many buildings that are historic, that we can't touch, then how does that affect our RHNA numbers? I think going forward.

That's a kind of analysis I would be interested in in in looking at, I guess.

Response PC.5
Please refer to Response PC.2. Three of the inventory sites contain known historic structures.

Therefore, removal of those sites from the inventory would not affect the City’s ability to meet the RHNA numbers. Further, the proposed HEU itself is a plan and does not include specific development projects. As stated in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, under existing 94

Public Hearing Comments

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report land use and zoning regulations and with implementation of programs in the proposed HEU, more than 19,000 additional units could be constructed which is more than double the City’s RHNA. The Draft EIR assumes full buildout as a conservative analysis of environmental effects of the proposed HEU.

Comment PC.6
Yeah, I guess we're making like through this process. We've always been saying we are we are meeting our RHNA numbers, we don't need to rezone, yet this is such an unavoidable [impact that] could potentially be huge, and if it is huge then we may not meet our RHNA numbers. I see a tension and a contradiction there, and that's what I’m trying to balance. Like how can we say both? Response PC.6
Please refer to Response PC.5.

Comment PC.7
I had a question, I mean, you are really having a lot of extra units over what assigned in the housing element in the RHNA numbers, because that's 8,934 and the EIR is for 19,098 units; so planning for excess units. I mean I didn't expect over 11,000 excess units. So is there some explanation as to why we're going for that number rather than just sort of a safety plan over our 8,934 assigned RHNA? Response PC.7
As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the projected buildout assumed for the analysis in the Draft EIR consists of a projection based on the EIR Sites Inventory of 15,153 units, an additional 1,200 units at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, as well as projections for implementation programs related to the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R zoning districts and the Southside Zoning Modification Project, totaling 2,745 units. Overall, this EIR assumes 19,098 units associated with the proposed HEU. The number and location of units actually developed during the Housing Element period will likely differ from those included in the EIR Projected Buildout, but any difference would result in fewer total units and a reduction of total physical sites for housing development.

Comment PC.8
I do have a couple of comments, I guess and they're kind of related to some of Commissioner Ghosh's comments. But you know it was really interesting to read through. Thanks for bringing it forward-- and I know it's a huge amount of work, you know, so I guess my first comment is, I you know I was kind of surprised to see that the EIR seems to assume no more density along the main corridors. And you know it seems to focus, you know, stay where there will be density or seen there might be more density, as in both missing middle and then Southside only.

My thinking was that we have some changes in the works along the lines of more density on the corridors. So I thought I would see some expectation to see something around that, like an alternative that had some upzoning along the corridors. And I was also thinking in something I saw of which was submitted to HCD, I thought that it did talk about upzoning considerations following the corridor, so it's kind of surprised to not see that, I guess. 95

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report But I think that you know that's related to this issue of you know, the number of units. So the housing element counts identified a total of about 11,000 units, right, and then you got the EIR looking at about 19,000 units right? I mean that's a fairly large buffer in that regard. But I mean my kind of ongoing concern I guess is that there's sort of you know more kind of unrealistic assumptions about the development on those different parcels identified, and no one has a crystal ball, so we don't know -- you know, part art and part science, clearly. But even at 19,000 right, you know, if the development likelihood is 50% or less, which I think is entirely plausible, I mean that maybe gets you at RHNA, maybe not, right--you cut 19 and half--so you know what are those are being as 8,500, or so. I mean, if I was to bet, I probably would not bet that the likelihood is over 50% on the vast majority of these sites, by any stretch.

So, anyway, my opinion is that you know we have to zone for more in order to meet the goal like we have to
sort of count above, and the number has to be larger in order to meet RHNA. But I think particularly to meet the below market rate goals. I'm gonna read the statement in the staff report, and it's in the EIR, which I thought was really telling. It's on of the pdf--on the page that has the
bullet of missing middle and the bullet of South Side--it says:
“Based on the foregoing, the city has determined that rezoning is not needed to meet the RHNA”-- which I was kind of surprised by, but the next sentence is what really got me— "However, recent development activity suggests current zoning alone does not deliver the number of, or number or affordability level of deed restricted affordable house units.” That signals to me that we’re well aware that existing zoning is not gonna give us the deed restricted units that we're hoping, so that we need you know additional density.

I think lastly, my comment is, you know, I would be a more informed commenter if I was able to see the formal response from HCD first. So you know I think you know that it's expected in early November, so you know I feel like my comments are a bit premature, because HCD hasn't weighed in and I know they don't have time to scrutinize every housing element in state. But I guess I’ll end with a question which is can staff kind of tell us what the process is for addressing HCD.

I'm not an EIR expert, but you don’t want to have to redo an EIR to accommodate more, denser alternative. So I'm just trying to avoid any of us having to do that.

Response PC.8
Please refer to Response PC.7. The Draft EIR includes an analysis of the HEU as proposed. The proposed HEU does not involve a specific policy or program to increase density along corridors; though as discussed in Section 2 of the Draft EIR, many of the inventory sites are along corridors.

Further, as noted by the commenter, the proposed HEU determined that rezoning is not needed to meet RHNA; nonetheless, the proposed HEU includes policies and programs to achieve affordable housing goals and to increase density in some areas per the direction of City Council.

Comment PC.9
I would agree with a lot of Commissioner Vincent's comments that, with the current zoned capacity, if we look at how much got built under that in the last [period], that's not going to meet our needs for the upcoming cycle, especially since a lot of the sites have already been built on. The other comment I have is If you go to page 573 of our packet, it looks like almost all of the sites are concentrated in a handful of neighborhoods. I think that if one of the goals is to affirmatively further fair housing and get housing in high resource neighborhoods. This doesn't quite do that. Thank you. 96

Public Hearing Comments

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Response PC.9
This comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR.

Comment PC.10
Thanks. I definitely agree with what I’ve heard already, and Commissioner Twu brought up a really critical thing. You know, my day job is in the affordable housing development space, and I've got an intern right now, and the first thing I’m training him on is what do we look for in an affordable housing site? Well, Albert mentioned one of those things and that's to be in a so called high resource area. The State of California prioritizes affordable housing funding for projects in high resource areas. And if you're not in one, you may have a project that's well conceived, well located, transit- oriented, deeply affordable, and fully financed, but you might be sent on the sidelines for several rounds of funding, and there's a 100 projects in California that look just like that today.

So as staff is contemplating-- and I’ve read this in the in the staff's memo--that there is a desire to try to promote more affordable housing, middle income housing-- I’m in favor of all of those things-- so interestingly one strategy would be to identify properties within these high resource areas, and Albert might have been speaking— and I don't know if he was if you were talking generically, Commissioner Twu-- but the State has adopted a mapping program that UC Berkeley created, and there are now defined high, medium and low resource areas, so that role could change over the life cycle of this housing element.

But I can tell you the affordable housing developers that might be scouring the city for opportunities, that's where they're going to start. It might be helpful if the city sort of rolled out the red carpet, particularly in areas like that. So I think that's a it just triggered this thought for me that that's what we look for, and that's what I think a lot of our collegial competitors seek out as well.

And of course, as it turns out, many of these are in areas where we're not building affordable housing today. I know that, you know, as the map was shown earlier…and I know there's some of my colleagues and friends in Berkeley are wondering why we're not seeing more proposals in some of these other neighborhoods--in the in the transition up into the hills. Hills are challenging for all the reasons we know, but there are other locations, you know, maybe Upper Solano keeps getting mentioned. I don't know if that was studied as fully as other parks in the city. Thanks. By the way, before I forget, you know I do want to thank the staff and the consultants for the high quality work it's here. I find it most of the stuff really fascinating.

Response PC.10
This comment does not address the adequacy or content of the Draft EIR.

Comment PC.11
I'm trying to understand a few things: one is one of the things I think you'll said is some pieces of this might peel off when specific projects happen or might be referred to in some way. So I’m wondering if you could explain that relationship and give an example of how this might play with specific projects. So that's one thing
The second thing is I want to understand how these alternatives--the no project one is clear but the other 2, how were they were chosen? Were there other alternatives that could have been chosen? 97

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report And the last thing is more general: which is I think just sort of reading this, sort of looking at the piece-- I couldn't read all 600 pages of it but you're just reading some pieces--or even with this historic resource piece, there seem to be some pieces that are maybe I guess out of date with where the city is today, just because the plans were done at different times. I think the aesthetics piece I think that's something you're called out in the EIR as well as something that doesn't apply anymore, depending on the location in transit zones or something like that. So I’m just wondering if staff, do we ever do look at any EIR like this as programmatic and identify things that are barriers, but that we follow because they're in the city's documents, but from some time ago. So it's a little bit of a complicated question, and just wondering through, can we use this as a tool to identify what we need to be working on to sort of get everything aligned again.

I mean you said it basically we don't touch anything nothing, then there are no impacts. I thin k that's
a huge sort of assumption when we're making the alternatives. I guess my I'm also sort of struggling with this [question] is that we zone, but we don't often meet our goals, we don't meet enough we're not meeting our you know affordable housing goals, and so I wonder, and I don't know the answer.

But if you all have any thoughts I would love to hear, but like by choosing the middle zoning to reduce units because effectively, what you're saying is, if we don't do this we reduce units right? But at what point are we looking at whether that affects 2 and 3 like the other goals, right? So, this is not a zoning we've had before the others we've had and they haven't really us helped build this kind of housing we want, the middle zoning might help us get more affordable housing units, so by picking this and saying that not doing this is an environmentally superior alternative, but as a strategy, does the strategy get us more affordable units? And are we sort of creating an underst
anding of it that is false? If the goal is just to say that if we do fewer units--but what kind of units too? right?--so I think I have no issue with taller buildings in Berkeley. I think now with engineered timber, often the construction noise, and all of that can be mitigated can be less. But at the same time a smaller project in many places will have less construction noise impact right. So I just want to make sure that I’m understanding correctly, and I don't want somebody who's not having the opportunity to read all of this to walk with an assumption that Oh, we don't do the middle housing rezoning because that's an environmentally superior alternative. But really what you're saying this isn't a stand-in for something that might lead to fewer units, therefore it is an environmentally superior alternative. Does that right?
Okay, Okay, I know this is I mean so complicated. I just want to make sure I was understanding it correctly.

Oh, and the last thing any is that that's not entirely related to CEQA, but I’m wondering: Since we don't often do such a huge programmatic CEQA, we don't do the housing element CEQA that often, are there things that staff is identified that are not in sync with the general plan, or that require policy changes or plan changes in the future? Or you all have not had time to look at that? Response PC.11
The alternatives analysis includes alternatives identified through the scoping process and in coordination with City staff. As discussed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives (stated in Section 2, Project Description, of this EIR) but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts of the proposed HEU. In addition, the CEQA- required “No Project” alternative was analyzed. Alternative 3, No Middle Housing Rezoning, includes approximately 975 fewer units in the middle housing rezone areas compared buildout included in the analysis of the proposed HEU with rezoning of the middle housing zones. This alternative would 98

Public Hearing Comments

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report result in reduced impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems and wildfire due to the decrease in residential units developed. Because Alternative 3 slightly reduces the severity of impacts resulting from the proposed project, it is the environmentally superior alternative. However, the City is not obligated to adopt the environmentally superior alternative.

As discussed in S ection 4.10, Land Use
and Planning, of the Draft EIR, the proposed HEU does
include amendments to other elements of the City’s General Plan so that there is internal consistency between documents. Overall, the proposed HEU was found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan.

99

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 5 Draft EIR Text Revisions
Chapter 5 presents specific changes to the text of the Draft EIR that are being made to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to the text of the Draft EIR, including in response to comments received during the public review period. In no case do these revisions result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a substantially greater severity than those set forth in the Draft EIR such that recirculation of the Draft EIR would be required. Where revisions to the main text are called for, the page section number are set forth, followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with underlined text. Text deleted from the Draft EIR is shown in strikeout. Page numbers correspond to the page numbers of the Draft EIR.

5.1 Draft EIR Text Revisions
The text under Impact HAZ-5 on Page 4.8-22 in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials has been revised as follows:

IMPACT HAZ-5 T HE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT RESULT IN PHYSICAL CHANGES THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH OR IMPAIR EMERGENCY RESPONSE OR EVACUATION. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INTERFERENCE WITH THESE TYPES OF ADOPTED PLANS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

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

As discussed in Section 4.17, Wildfire, construction of individual housing developments could interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans as a result of temporary construction activities within rights-of-way. However, temporary construction barricades or other construction-related obstructions used for project development that could impede emergency access would be subject to the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, which include 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 construction activities during the planning period of the HEU would impair or physically interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation procedures.

As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, future development in the City would be required to conform to the latest fire code requirements, including provisions for emergency access. With adherence to existing General Plan policies and other regulations, implementation of the proposed HEU would not impair or interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan. This impact would be less than significant. 100

Draft EIR Text Revisions

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report During review of the Draft EIR, the City opted to make voluntary changes to the following Mitigation Measures in order to provide further clarity. Added text is indicated with underlined and deleted text is indicated with strikeout. None of these changes would warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Page ES-6 in the Executive Summary and Page 4.2-18 In Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR are revised as follows:

AQ-1: Construction Emissions Reduction Measures
As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future development projects within the project sites to Projects shall comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM
10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines), outlined below.

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times a day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacture’s specifications. All
equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper conditions prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Pages ES-7 through ES-8 in the Executive Summary and Page 4.2-22 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR are revised as follows:

AQ-2: Construction Health Risk Assessment
For individual projects (excluding ADUs, single-family residences, and duplexes) where construction activities would occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, would last longer than two months, and would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction 101

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report equipment, the project applicant shall prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) and implement necessary measures to reduce risk below The HRA shall determine potential risk and compare the risk to the following BAAQMD thresholds:
 Non compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan;  Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
 Increased non-canc er risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or  Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average
Page ES-6 in th
e Executive Summary and Page 4.4-17 In Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR are revised as follows:

CUL-2: Historical Resources Discretionary Review
For projects that are subject to discretionary review that occur during the Housing Element period where a historical-age building or structure that has not been previously evaluated is present, a historical resources assessment shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level survey in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines to determine if the property qualifies for federal, state, or local
historical resources designation. All age eligible properties shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a technical memorandum with Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms.

Should If a property is be found to be a qualifying historical resource, then the project shall be subject to the City’s regulations for permit review, including by the Preservation Landmarks Commission pursuant to Chapter 3.24.260, and/or by the Zoning Adjustments Board pursuant to Chapter 23.326 of the City of Berkeley Municipal Code. Efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated. Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources built environment assessment shall also identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities.

Page ES-20 in the Executive Summary and Page 4.15-7 in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the
Draft EIR are revised as follows:

TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Monitoring
For future projects that are determined through tribal consultation to potentially affect tribal cultural resources, in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts to Native American cultural objects and human remains discovered during construction, tribal cultural monitors will be retained to monitor work done in areas of Tribal concern, as determined through tribal consultation. If Native American cultural objects and/or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until the objects have been inspected and evaluated by tribal cultural monitors and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards of the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR Part 61). The archaeologist shall, in accordance with the appropriate 102

Draft EIR Text Revisions

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Guidelines, identify and evaluate the significance of the discovery and develop recommendations for treatment in consultation with the affected Tribe to ensure any impacts to the cultural resource are less than significant. The preferred mitigation is avoidance. If avoidance is not feasible, Project impacts shall be mitigated in consultation with the affected Tribe consistent with the CEQA Guidelines for Determining the Significance of and Impacts to Cultural Resource, Archaeological Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources.

Such mitigation may include, but is not limited to, additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring and/or an archaeological data recovery program. A Native American monitor shall be retained to monitor the ground disturbance when it is suspected that a TCR might be encountered.

103

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 6 CEQA Implications for Changes to the
Housing Element
This section provides a discussion of the CEQA implications of changes to the Housing Element that have been made after circulation of the Draft EIR.

6.1 Changes to the Housing Element
The total number of units included in the EIR sites inventory is 15,001 units, a reduction 152 units from the EIR projection. In addition, the units included in the each of the three categories used to meet the RHNA – likely sites, pipeline sites, and opportunity sites – have been updated:
 The likely sites, which originally included an estimated 4,685 units, now includes an estimated 2,690 units. This includes a reduction in the number of estimated ADUs from 800 units to 600 ADUs to be developed during the 2023-2031 planning period based on information from previous years and trends.
 The pipeline sites, which originally included an estimated 2,415 units, now include an estimated 5,822 units.
 The opportunity sites included an estimated 8,053 units, and now includes an estimated 6,489 units.

These changes result from the submission of a number of development applications and pre- applications, with higher than anticipated unit counts, in the first six months of 2022. Additionally, a number of opportunity sites were removed as a result of community input, HCD Feedback, and additional research into specific site conditions. One new pipeline site (zoned C-DMU Core and comprising 214 units) was added. Additionally, another pipeline site was moved to the opportunity site category (zoned R-SMU, originally 100 units and revised to 199 units based on lot size). A third pipeline site was reduced in unit count (zoned R-2, originally 136 units and revised to 110 units based on pre-application). Finally, corrections to four other pipeline sites resulted in the removal of 25 units from the total unit count.

6.2 Environmental Implications
As stated above, the number of units within each category of likely, pipeline, and opportunity sites has changed and the overall number of inventory sites has been reduced by 152 units. Therefore, the projected overall buildout analyzed throughout has been reduced.

The Draft EIR determined that the environmental impacts of the original HEU would be less than significant or could be reduced to below a level of significance with proposed mitigation measures for most of the topical areas studied except for historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire.

Overall, the potential changes to the proposed HEU would not the area studied in the EIR (impacts were assessed citywide), would not change the objectives and goals of the proposed HEU, would not change the allowed uses or densities under the proposed HEU, and would not increase the buildout assumptions analyzed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the proposed HEU changes would not affect the findings and conclusions of the Draft EIR with respect to aesthetics, agriculture and

CEQA Implications for Changes to the Housing Element

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, or wildfire. Those impacts would be incrementally reduced and remain less than significant, less than significant with mitigation, or in the case of construction noise, historical resources, and wildfire, significant and unavoidable.

The changes to the proposed HEU would not result in new or increased significant environmental impacts. No new significant impacts would occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required; therefore, no impacts beyond those identified in the EIR would occur. No substantial revisions to the EIR are required; therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 recirculation of the EIR is not required.

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

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report

This page intentionally left blank.
106

Attachment 3, Exhibit A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Envir
onmental Impact Report 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines require a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for ensuring compliance during project implementation with mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted at the time of project approval.

As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code:
...the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.

Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provide general guidance for implementing mitigation monitoring programs, and indicate that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined by the agency.

To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, this MMRP identifies the timing and responsibility for implementing and monitoring each measure. Applicants for future projects will have the responsibility for implementing the measures that apply to the proposed development activity, and the identified City of Berkeley departments will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the mitigation measures.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Procedures
Monitoring and
Reporting Action
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Compliance
Verification
(Initial, Date,
Comments)
Air Quality
AQ-1: Construction Emissions Reduction Measures
Projects shall comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines), outlined below.

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacture’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
Project applicants
shall comply with
BAAQMD control
measures for reducing
construction
emissions.

As part of any
grading / building
permit, ensure
control measures
are implemented
during construction.

During
construction.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development,
Building &
Safety Division

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Envir
onmental Impact Report 3
Mitigation Measure
Imple
mentation
Procedures
Monitoring and
Reporting Action
Monito
ring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Complian
ce
Verification
(Initial, Date,
Comments)
determined to be running in proper conditions prior to
operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

AQ-2: Construction Health Risk Assessment
For projects (excluding ADUs, single-family residences, and duplexes) where construction activities would occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, would last longer than two months, and would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment, the project applicant shall prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) and implement necessary measures to reduce risk below the following BAAQMD thresholds:
 Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
 Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or
 Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average
Project applicants shall
prepare a construction
health risk assessment
(HRA) where required
by the measure and
implement measures
as necessary to reduce
construction health
risk.

Verify HRA
completed.

Verify measures are
implemented during
construction as
needed.

Prior to
issuance of
building
permit.

During
construction as
needed.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development
City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development,
Building &
Safety Division
AQ-3: TAC Exposure Reduction Building Measures
The following design features shall be incorporated for residential development located within 1,000 feet of I-580/80 or on a lot that fronts on a section of roadway with 10,000 vehicles per day or more in order to reduce exposure of proposed residences to Project applicants shall
incorporate design
features to reduce
exposure of proposed
residences to TACs
Verify design
features to reduce
TACs have been
incorporated into
plans as appropriate.

Prior to
issuance of
building permit.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 Mitigation Measure
Imple
mentation
Procedures
Monitoring and
Reporting Action
Monito
ring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Complian
ce
Verification
(Initial, Date,
Comments)
TACs from vehicles and stationary combustion engines (i.e., generators):

1. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high
efficiency particulate filters (HEPA). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 99.97 percent of the
DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system
(U.S. EPA 2022). The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter. Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors.

2. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a
ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers
MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour
recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC
system.

3. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project.

4. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph).
where required by the
measure.

Inspect at project
site to confirm that
required design
features are
properly installed
During
construction
City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Envir
onmental Impact Report 5
Mitigation Measure
Imple
mentation
Procedures
Monitoring and
Reporting Action
Monito
ring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Complian
ce
Verification
(Initial, Date,
Comments)

5. Prepare an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems, consistent with manufacturers’
recommendations.

6. The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Historic Context Statement, Cultural Resources Survey and Designations During the period of this Housing Element, the City should conduct a citywide historic context statement and a cultural resource survey to identify historic resources, with priority given to sites in the EIR Site Inventory, to determine if there are designed built environment features which are over 40 years of age proposed to be altered or demolished. Designation of historic or cultural resources should be conducted by the Landmarks Preservation Commission pursuant to 3.24.260 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

The City shall conduct
a citywide historic
context statement and
a cultural resource
survey.

Verify that survey
has been completed,
designate resources
that are discovered.

During the
housing
element
period.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development
Landmarks
Preservation
Commission to
make
necessary
designations
CUL-2: Historical Resources Discretionary Review
For projects that are subject to discretionary review that occur during the Housing Element period where a historical-age building or structure that has not been previously evaluated is present, a historical resources assessment shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level survey in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines to determine if the property qualifies for federal, state, or local historical resources designation. All age eligible properties shall be evaluated within their historic context and Project applicants shall
retain a qualified
architectural historian
to perform a historical
resources assessment
for any historical-aged
building or structure
that has not been
previously evaluated.

Review and approve
the historical
resources
assessment.

During project
review.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
6 Mitigation Measure
Imple
mentation
Procedures
Monitoring and
Reporting Action
Monito
ring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Complian
ce
Verification
(Initial, Date,
Comments)
documented in a technical memorandum with Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms.

If a property is found to be a qualifying historical resource, then the project shall be subject to the City’s regulations for permit review, including by the Preservation Landmarks Commission pursuant to Chapter 3.24.260, and/or by the Zoning Adjustments Board pursuant to Chapter 23.326 of the City of Berkeley Municipal Code. Efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated. Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources built environment assessment shall also identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities.

Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR §
15126.4(b)(1)). Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how the project complies with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.

If significant historical
resources are
identified, develop and
implement site-
specific mitigation
measures.

Verify site-specific
mitigation measures
have been
implemented as
needed.

During and at
completion of
construction.

Landmarks
Preservation
Commission

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Envir
onmental Impact Report 7
Mitigation Measure
Imple
mentation
Procedures
Monitoring and
Reporting Action
Monito
ring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Complian
ce
Verification
(Initial, Date,
Comments)
If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. These may include documentation of the resource in a manner consistent with the standards of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS). Documentation should include full descriptive and historical narrative, measured drawings, and medium format photographs, all in archivally stable format.

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

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

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

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

On the identified soil
types:

Project applicants shall
retain a qualified
paleontologist.

Verify that qualified
paleontologist has
been retained and
measures have been
implemented.

Prior to
issuance of
grading /
building
permit,
periodically
during
construction.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
8 Mitigation Measure
Imple
mentation
Procedures
Monitoring and
Reporting Action
Monito
ring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Complian
ce
Verification
(Initial, Date,
Comments)
Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff.

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

Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological Project applicants shall
implement a Worker
Environmental
Awareness Training
(WEAP) on
paleontological
resources.

Project applicants shall
hire a paleontological
resources monitor,
and if fossils are
discovered, follow
procedures for
managing resources.

Project applicants shall
prepare final
Paleontological
Monitoring report and
shall obtain review
and approval of the
report from the City of
Berkeley.

Verify that WEAP
has been completed.

Verify that qualified
paleontological
resources monitor
has been retained.

Review final
Paleontological
Monitoring report.

Prior to
issuance of
grading /
building permit
Prior to
issuance of
grading /
building
permit.

Upon
completion of
ground
disturbing
activity.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Envir
onmental Impact Report 9
Mitigation Measure
Imple
mentation
Procedures
Monitoring and
Reporting Action
Monito
ring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Complian
ce
Verification
(Initial, Date,
Comments)
monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the City. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository.

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

Project applicants shall
retain a qualified
archaeologist to
identify and evaluate
the significance of a
discovery and develop
recommendations for
treatment in
consultation with the
affected Tribe.

Verify that a tribal
cultural monitor and
qualified
archaeologist have
been retained.

Verify that resources
are mitigated as
appropriate.

Prior to
issuance of
grading /
building permit
and during
construction as
needed.

Prior to
issuance of
grading /
building permit
and during
construction as
needed.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
10 Mitigation Measure
Imple
mentation
Procedures
Monitoring and
Reporting Action
Monito
ring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Complian
ce
Verification
(Initial, Date,
Comments)
archaeological data recovery program. A Native American monitor shall be retained to monitor the ground disturbance when it is suspected that a TCR might be encountered.

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

Verify that plans for
undergrounding of
power drops have
been submitted and
that power drops
are properly
undergrounded.

Prior to
issuance of a
building
permit;
verification
after
construction.

City of
Berkeley
Department of
Planning &
Development
1589966.3

Attachment 3, Exhibit B
CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the
State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared by the City of Berkeley (City) for the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU) Project (“the project”) consists of the August 2022 Draft EIR and December 2022 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR identifies significant environmental impacts that will result from implementation of the project. The City finds that the adoption of mitigation measures identified in the EIR as part of project approval will reduce all but the following significant environmental effects (impacts) to levels that are less than significant: historical resources, construction noise, wildfire, and cumulative cultural resources, cumulative construction noise, and cumulative wildfire impacts. For those impacts, no feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level or mitigation measures have been identified and included but would not reduce impacts to a level of less than significant; therefore, these impacts will remain significant unavoidable impacts of the project.

These findings contain a statement of overriding considerations that explains why the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and are therefore acceptable.

As required by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines), the City, in addition to adopting these CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. In adopting the MMRP, the City finds that it meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant environmental effects of the project.

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part of the project approval. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................3 SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CITY OF BERKELEY 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (HEU) ........................................................................................................................................3 SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS .................................................................................5 SECTION 4: FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................5 SECTION 5: FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................20 SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................22 SECTION 7: INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE.....................................................................................23 SECTION 8: RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED ......................................................................................23 SECTION 9: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS...............................................................................................23

SECTION 10:SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................24

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings
CEQA Guidelines § 15091 states that:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects (impacts) that will otherwise occur with implementation of the project. Mitigation measures or project alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the modifying the project or adopting mitigation is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency.1
For significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.2 CEQA Guidelines §15093(a) states that:
“If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a propos[ed] project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.’”

SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CITY OF BERKELEY 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT

UPDATE (HEU)
This section provides a brief description of the project and lists the objectives of the proposed project.

2.1 Project Description
The project, which is an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan, is applicable to the entire City of Berkeley (citywide). The city encompasses approximately 17.2 square miles, approximately 7.2 of which is underwater in the San Francisco Bay. The proposed project consists of a comprehensive update to the Housing Element and related edits to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element and Berkeley Municipal Code.

The Housing Element is one of the seven state-mandated elements of the local General Plan and is required to be updated every eight years by local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The City of Berkeley is preparing the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate that requires each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) and (3).
2 Public Resources Code Section 21081(b).

meet the existing and projected housing needs for various income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the city with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing, and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The Housing Element Update establishes goals, policies, and actions to address the existing and projected housing needs in Berkeley.

The goals, policies, and actions in the Housing Element are required to meet Berkeley’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. Berkeley’s latest RHNA allocation calls for 8,934 new housing units, including 3,854 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The City must demonstrate to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that the City’s Housing Element has adequate land capacity and implementing policies to accommodate its RHNA allocation. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15% to 30% above the RHNA for lower- and moderate-income categories. Thus, overall, the City’s zoning and other land use regulations must accommodate between approximately 10,275 and 11,615 new units.

The City has determined that rezoning is not needed to meet the RHNA. However, recent development activity suggests current zoning does not deliver the level of deed-restricted affordable housing and economic diversity that the HEU aims to achieve. Therefore, the HEU contains implementation programs and zoning policies to encourage additional housing, particularly affordable housing that supports a diversity of income levels and household types.

In conjunction with the Housing Element Update, the project includes amendments to the General Plan including revising the Land Use Element as well as changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance to maintain consistency with the updated Housing Element. The Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance revisions are to ensure consistency among all General Plan Elements and zoning upon implementation of the updated Housing Element.

For the implementation of the proposed HEU and associated other General Plan amendments and zoning changes, the Draft EIR assumes growth of an estimated 19,098 units over the Housing Element period. The EIR Sites Inventory includes 1) sites for an estimated 4,685 units considered Likely Sites for development, 2) sites for an estimated 2,415 units that are currently in the entitlement and development Pipeline, 3) sites for an estimated 8,053 units on Opportunity Sites identified by the City, 4) sites for approximately 1,745 units projected to result from rezoning of lower-density districts, and 5) sites for 1,000 units projected to result from rezoning of the Southside Plan Area. This total may not include all potential residential development sites within the City limits, and individual sites may or may not be developed at the allowable densities. The placement and design of buildings on specific sites cannot be determined until the City receives an application for a specific project.

The EIR also analyzes alternatives to the project as described in Section 5, below.

2.2 Project Objectives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the EIR project description must include “[a] statement of objectives sought by the proposed project… The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” The City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update is intended to achieve the following project objectives:

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

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

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

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

SECTION 3: 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.

SECTION 4: FINDINGS
These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the EIR about project impacts before and after mitigation and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR.

Instead, these findings provide a summary description of and basis for each impact in the EIR, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR, and state the City Council’s findings and rationale therefor on the significance of each impact with the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR supporting the EIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the project’s impacts.

4.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The Draft EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the approval of the project, some of which can be reduced, although not to a less-than-significant level, through implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR (Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1)). To the extent that these mitigation measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the environment, it is hereby determined that any remaining significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable for the reasons specified in Section 6, below (Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3)). The findings in this section are based on the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

4.3.1 Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Development accommodated by the proposed Housing Element Update could adversely affect known and previously unidentified historic-period resources. Impacts to historic-period resources would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Historic Context Statement, Cultural Resources Survey and Designations. During the period of this Housing Element, the City should conduct a citywide historic context statement and a cultural resource survey to identify historic resources, with priority given to sites in the EIR Site Inventory, to determine if there are designed built environment features which are over 40 years of age proposed to be altered or demolished. Designation of historic or cultural resources should be conducted by the Landmarks Preservation Commission pursuant to 3.24.260 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Historical Resources Discretionary Review. For projects that are subject to discretionary review that occur during the Housing Element period where a historical-age building or structure that has not been previously evaluated is present, a historical resources assessment shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level survey in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines to determine if the property qualifies for federal, state, or local historical resources designation. All age eligible properties shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a technical memorandum with Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms.

If a property is found to be a qualifying historical resource, then the project shall be subject to the City’s regulations for permit review, including by the Preservation Landmarks Commission pursuant to Chapter

3.24.260, and/or by the Zoning Adjustments Board pursuant to Chapter 23.326 of the City of Berkeley Municipal Code. Efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated.

Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources built environment assessment shall also identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities.

Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR § 15126.4(b)(1)). Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how the project complies with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. These may include documentation of the resource in a manner consistent with the standards of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS). Documentation should include full descriptive and historical narrative, measured drawings, and medium format photographs, all in archivally stable format.

Finding: The City finds impacts related to cultural resources have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Despite the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is

acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 6 of these Findings).

Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that a historical resource evaluation is conducted for properties subject to discretionary review to determine if a property contains a historical resource eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or as a City of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit.

In combination with City of Berkeley regulations, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with implementation of this mitigation measure, existing and eligible historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development that would be carried out under the proposed Housing Element because specific actions intended for the reduction of impacts to historical resources could be deemed infeasible.

Additionally, projects that are not subject to discretionary review and have not been previously evaluated could result in the demolition of potential historic resources. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

4.3.2 Noise
Impact NOI-1: Construction associated with housing development accommodated under the proposed HEU would be required to comply with the allowed daytime construction hours as set forth in the Berkeley Municipal Code and therefore, would not occur during nighttime hours when people are more sensitive to noise. Larger developments could involve construction with lengthy durations, substantial soil movement, use of large, heavy-duty equipment, and/or pile driving near noise-sensitive land uses that would exceed the applicable FTA daytime noise limits. implementation of City Standard Conditions of Approval for construction noise would reduce construction noise levels, but may not reduce them to below thresholds for every project. Therefore, impacts generated by temporary construction noise would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures: No feasible Mitigation Measures have been identified.

Finding: The City finds no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts beyond what is already required under the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval. Because there are no feasible Mitigation Measures, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 6 of these Findings).

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

4.3.3 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.

Mitigation Measures: No feasible Mitigation Measures have been identified.

Finding: The City finds impacts related to wildfire have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

Because there are no feasible Mitigation Measures, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 6 of these Findings).

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

Impact WF-2. Implementation of the proposed HEU would encourage development in the hillside areas located near a State Responsibility Area and in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. New development would be required to comply with extensive regulations and fire safety provisions in the Berkeley Municipal Code, including the Fire Code. Based on the existing regulatory framework and project review process with Berkeley Fire Department, impacts would be generally avoided. However, it remains possible that even with existing regulations, construction or other human activities related to development in or near an SRA or in a VHFHSZ could exacerbate wildfire risk and expose existing and new residents to pollutant concentrations and uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Additionally, by increasing the population of the WUI area, more people will be directly threatened when a wildland fire occurs. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures: No feasible Mitigation Measures have been identified.

Finding: The City finds impacts related to wildfire have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

Because there are no feasible Mitigation Measures, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 6 of these Findings).

Facts in Support of Finding: Compliance with existing City regulations and the implementation of the City’s requirement for a Fire Protection Plan to be prepared for development of housing projects in the Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Area would reduce the potential to exacerbate wildfire risk during construction and after projects are constructed. This would reduce the severity of potential impacts related to exposure to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the likelihood of wildfire ignition. No additional mitigation measures beyond adherence to existing procedures are required or are feasible. Nonetheless, for some development projects, even with implementation of these wildfire prevention measures, impacts may result from the potential for unusual site-specific or road conditions, project characteristics, and the general ongoing fire risk in Berkeley Hills. Additionally, by increasing the population of the VHFHSZ, more people will be directly threatened and evacuation and firefighting efforts will be further challenged when a fire occurs. Based on this, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact WF-3. Implementation of the proposed HEU would encourage development of housing on inventory sites and in the Hillside Overlay district located near a State Responsibility Area and in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The proposed HEU could expose people and structures to risk due to the terrain and slope in the Berkeley hills. This could result in potential risks such as landslides. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures: No feasible Mitigation Measures have been identified.

Finding: The City finds impacts related to wildfire have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

Because there are no feasible Mitigation Measures, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 6 of these Findings).

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

Impact WF-4. Implementation of the proposed HEU would encourage development of housing on inventory sites and in the R-, R-2, and R-2a districts located near a State Responsibility Area and in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, the area is already developed and served by existing infrastructure and it is not anticipated that installation of new infrastructure or a substantial increase in the maintenance of existing infrastructure would occur. Should additional maintenance or construction of such infrastructure occur, implementation of Mitigation Measure w-1 would reduce the risk of fire during construction. Overall, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures W-1: Undergrounding of Power Drops in the VHFHSZs. The City shall require that new or upgraded power drops located in the very high fire hazard severity zone be installed underground.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for undergrounding of power drops.

Finding: The City finds impacts related to wildfire have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

Nonetheless, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 6 of these Findings).

Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure W-1, would reduce the potential for impacts under this threshold by placing power lines underground in areas subject to wildfire risk. However, it may not be feasible to impose this requirement on all projects. Additionally, potentially unusual site- specific conditions or aspects of the infrastructure project, including power line installation, may result in wildfire impacts from the installation or maintenance of infrastructure required by build out under the HEU.

This impact would therefore remain significant and unavoidable.

4.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVELS The Draft EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the project. However, the City finds for each of the significant or potentially significant impacts identified in this section (Section 4.2) that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091) and, thus, that adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce these significant or potentially significant effects to less-than-significant levels. These measures will be required of development projects as part of the City review and approval process where applicable. In addition, City Conditions of Approval and compliance with City and other regulations will further reduce project impacts.

4.3.1 Air Quality
Impact AQ-2. Construction facilitated by the project would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, which would affect local air quality. Adherence to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval would reduce construction emissions. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Emissions Reduction Measures. Projects shall comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines), outlined below.

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacture’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper conditions prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, set forth above, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to a less-than-significant level.

Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require future development projects within the project area to comply with measures to reduce air pollution emissions during construction. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Basic Construction Measures, and required application of the City’s air quality standard condition of approval.

Impact AQ-3. Construction activities for individual projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Additionally, development facilitated by the project would site new sensitive land uses near Interstate 580/80 which may expose them to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: AQ-2 Construction Health Risk Assessment. For projects (excluding ADUs, single-family residences, and duplexes) where construction activities would occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, would last longer than two months, and would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment, the project applicant shall prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) and implement necessary measures to reduce risk below the following BAAQMD thresholds:
 Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;

 Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or  Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: TAC Exposure Reduction Building Measures The following design features shall be incorporated for residential development located within 1,000 feet of I-580/80 or on a lot that fronts on a section of roadway with 10,000 vehicles per day or more in order to reduce exposure of proposed residences to TACs from vehicles and stationary combustion engines (i.e., generators):

1. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high efficiency particulate filters (HEPA). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 99.97 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system (U.S. EPA 2022). The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter. Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors.

2. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system.

3. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project.

4. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph).

5. Prepare an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems, consistent with manufacturers’ recommendations.

The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 and AQ-3, set forth above, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to a less-than-significant level.

Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would require preparation of a construction HRA for projects with construction activities with timelines greater than two months, located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, and would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment in order to reduce potential risk exposure to nearby sensitive receptors to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would require implementation of design features 1 to 6 in order to reduce exposure of proposed residences to TACs from vehicles and stationary combustion engines and to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

4.3.2 Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-5: Development facilitated by the proposed HEU has the potential to impact paleontological resources. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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

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

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

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

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

Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the City. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, set forth above, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to a less-than-significant level.

Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure procedures are in place to avoid destruction of paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

4.3.3 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1: Development during the planning period of the proposed HEU could adversely impact tribal cultural resources due to ground disturbing activity during construction. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, set forth above, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to a less-than-significant level.

Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 would reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources, as actions would be taken to identify, avoid, and retain identified tribal cultural resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

4.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR NOT SIGNIFICANT The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed below, the following impacts associated with the project are not significant or are less than significant. The Draft EIR identifies the following as less than significant impacts or as having no impact. Mitigation to further reduce less than significant impacts is not required by CEQA. The findings in this section are based on the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

4.3.1 Aesthetics
Impact AES-1. Implementation of the proposed HEU would alter the development pattern of the city such that scenic views of and from public viewpoints could be adversely affected. Potential future new development throughout the city could block views of a scenic vista from some public viewpoints. However, this would occur on individual sites and would be limited. This impact would be less than significant.

Impact AES-2. There are no designated or eligible Scenic Highways in Berkeley or with substantial views of Berkeley. Implementation of the proposed HEU not damage scenic resources visible from a Scenic Highway.

No impact would occur.

Impact AES-3. Berkeley is urbanized and future development under the proposed HEU would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. This impact would be less than significant.

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.

4.3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources
There are no agricultural lands on or adjacent to the project sites. None of the properties on or adjacent to the project sites are under a Williamson Act contract. Also, no properties on or adjacent to the project sites are zoned for timberland or contain forest land or significant stands of trees (City of Berkeley 2001a). Therefore, there would be no impacts with respect to agricultural lands, Williamson Act contracts, timberland, or forest resources.

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

Impact AQ-4. Development facilitated by the project would not create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant.

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

Impact BIO-2. Implementation of the proposed HEU may directly or indirectly impact riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or protected wetlands in the City of Berkeley. Implementation of federal, State, and local regulations and policies would ensure riparian habitat and wetlands are not significantly impacted. This impact would be less than significant.

Impact BIO-3. Implementation of the proposed HEU may result in impacts to state or federally protected wetlands. This impact would be less than significant.

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.

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.

Impact BIO-6. Implementation of the proposed HEU would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

4.3.5 Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-2. Development accommodated by the housing element update could adversely affect identified and previously unidentified archaeological Resources. Impacts would be less than significant with required adherence to the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for archaeological resources.

Impact CUL-3. Ground-disturbing activities associated with development under the housing element update could result in damage to or destruction of human burials. Impacts would be less than significant through adherence to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

4.3.6 Energy
Impact E-1. Project construction and operation would require temporary and long-term consumption of energy resources. However, with adherence to State and local regulations, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. This impact would be less than significant.

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.

4.3.7 Geology and Soils
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 Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Impact GEO-2. With adherence to applicable laws and regulations, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Impact GEO-3. Portions of Berkeley are located on expansive soils. However, with required implementation of standard engineering practices, impacts associated with unstable or expansive soils would be less than significant.

Impact GEO-4. The proposed project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

4.3.8 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Impact GHG-1. Future development under the proposed HEU would not directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. GHG emissions from the project would not exceed BAAQMD 2031 interpolated thresholds. This impact would be less than significant.

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 Climate Action Plan (CAP). This impact would be less than significant.

4.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the proposed HEU would facilitate new residential development in Berkeley.

Proposed new residential uses would not involve the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, construction of new residences could result in an increase in the overall routine, transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials in Berkeley for construction activities. Nonetheless, required compliance with applicable regulations related to hazardous materials and compliance with General Plan policies would minimize the risk of releases and exposure to these materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact HAZ-2. Implementation of the proposed HEU may result in hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements would minimize risks to schools and students, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-3. Implementation of the proposed HEU would accommodate development on or near hazardous materials sites. However, compliance with applicable regulations and the City’s Standard Conditions of

Approval requiring site characterization and cleanup would minimize hazards from development on contaminated sites. This impact would be less than significant.

Impact HAZ-4. There are no airports within two miles of the Berkeley, and Berkeley is not within the influence area of an airport. No impact would occur.

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.

4.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1. Future development under the proposed HEU would involve ground-disturbing activities and the use of heavy machinery that could release materials, including sediments and fuels, which could adversely affect water quality. Operation of potential future development could also result in discharges to storm drains that could be contaminated and affect downstream waters. However, compliance with required permits and existing regulations, and implementation of Best Management Practices contained therein, would ensure that potential water quality impacts would be less than significant.

Impact HYD-2. Future development facilitated under the proposed HEU would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Further, implementation of low impact development measures and on-site infiltration required under the C.3 provisions of the MRP, and compliance with the Berkeley Municipal Code would increase the potential for groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.

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.

Impact HYD-4. Development under the proposed HEU would place housing and other structures within FEMA- designated Flood Hazard Areas and tsunami zones. However, compliance with the General Plan, the BMC, and the California Health and Safety Code would reduce potential effects associated with flood events. This impact would be less than significant.

4.3.11 Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1. The proposed HEU includes policies and programs to encourage housing development on underutilized and vacant sites and along established commercial corridors and neighborhoods. Development under the proposed HEU would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.

Impact LU-2. The proposed HEU would be consistent with the goals and policies of Plan Bay Area 2050, the Berkeley General Plan, and the BMC. This impact would be less than significant.

4.3.12 Mineral Resources
The project sites are not designated as a significant mineral resources zone and mineral resource extraction in this area would be generally incompatible with existing and planned uses. As such, no mineral resource impacts would occur.

4.3.13 Noise
Impact NOI-2. Housing development accommodated under the proposed HEU could include mechanical equipment (i.e., HVAC), delivery and trash trucks, and other noise-generating activities. However, such activities would be similar to the existing noise environment. In addition, on-site activities would be required to comply with applicable noise standards in the Berkeley Municipal Code. Furthermore, while housing development would generate vehicle trips in the city, the increase in mobile noise would not result in a perceptible (3-dBA or greater) noise increase. Permanent noise increases due to operation of new development under the proposed HEU would be less than significant.

Impact NOI-3. Housing development accommodated under the proposed HEU would not involve operational activities that would result in substantial vibration levels (e.g., use of heavy equipment or machinery).

Construction activities would be required to implement the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval that control vibration. This impact would be less than significant.

Impact NOI-4. Housing developments accommodated under the proposed HEU would not be exposed to intermittent noise levels from overhead flight patterns from airports in the city as there are none located within the City. Furthermore, while the project would not emphasize building housing in the immediate vicinity of the airport, all residential development would, nonetheless, be required to incorporate noise insulation features per State and local standards to reduce interior noise levels to below 45 dBA. Therefore, the impact of airport or airstrip operations on new development would be less than significant.

4.3.14 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.

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.

4.3.15 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

4.3.16 Transportation
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.

Impact TRA-2. The proposed HEU not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). This impact would be less than significant.

Impact TRA-3. The proposed HEU would not substantially increase hazards because of a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). This impact would be less than significant.

Impact TRA-4. The proposed HEU would not have the potential to result in inadequate emergency access.

This impact would be less than significant.

4.3.17 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 capacity exists to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. impacts would be less than significant.

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.

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.

4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
An EIR is required to discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. CEQA Guidelines §15130(a). “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of the project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3); Pub. Resources Code § 21083(b)(2). Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR includes analyses of the cumulative impacts of the project in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future projects which described in Section 3, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR. The findings in this section are based on the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

The City finds that the proposed project will result in cumulatively considerable impacts to Cultural Resources, Noise, and Wildfire.

Development pursuant to the Housing Element Update and the University of California Berkeley Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) would have the potential to impact historical resources. Historic-period resources could be vulnerable to development activities that could result in damage to or demolition of cultural resources.

As explained in Impact CUL-2 in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce or avoid some but not all potential impacts to historical resources in Berkeley.

Therefore, cumulative historical resources impacts would be significant, and the project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable.

As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR, construction of future development projects in Berkeley would produce temporary noise impacts that would be localized to construction on a project site and sensitive receivers within the immediate vicinity. Therefore, only sensitive receivers located in close proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with individual housing development projects accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update may overlap for some time with construction activities for other development projects. Based on the locations of the potential housing sites, this could substantially increase noise levels at specific neighboring noise-sensitive receivers since many sites are located in proximity to each other. As a result, concurrent construction of development projects accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update could result in cumulatively considerable impacts. This impact would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

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.

4.5 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
An EIR is required to discuss growth inducing impacts, which consist of the ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d); Public Resources Code § 21100(b)(5). Direct growth inducement would result, for example, if a project involves the construction of substantial new housing that would support increased population in a community or establishes substantial new permanent employment opportunities. This additional population could, in turn, increase demands for public utilities, public services, roads, and other infrastructure. Indirect growth inducement would result if a project stimulates economic activity that requires physical development or removes an obstacle to growth and development (e.g., increasing infrastructure capacity that would enable new or additional development). It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d)).

Section 5, Other CEQA Required Sections, of the Draft EIR analyzes the growth inducing impacts of the Project. The discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

State law requires the City to promote the production of housing to meet its RHNA. The proposed project would address the RHNA of 8,934 units, of which 3,854 units must be for lower income households and could provide a buffer. To meet the objectives of the RHNA and provide sufficient capacity for housing development, the Housing Element identifies sites suited for residential development, and identifies implementation programs and zoning policies to encourage additional housing for all segments of the population. This includes the already-accomplished rezoning for the North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations, programs to encourage additional residential development in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts, and zoning map and height amendments in the Southside area for additional student housing development. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would align with ABAG’s RHNA determination and the State’s statutory requirements, which are established based on anticipated growth within the city and region. Growth anticipated under the proposed HEU is intended to meet regional housing needs over the longer term. Given that the State is currently in an

ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply and mismatched incomes and housing costs, the additional units and affordability programs would further assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting housing needs. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly. In addition, because infrastructure is largely in place and future development would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan, Zoning regulations and standards for public services and utilities; secondary or indirect effects associated with this growth do not represent a new significant environmental impact which has not already been addressed in the individual resource chapters of this EIR SECTION 5: FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

5.1 Project Alternatives
The Draft EIR analyzed three alternatives, examining the environmental impacts and feasibility of each alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives. The project objectives are listed in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR; the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, including feasible mitigation measures identified to avoid these impacts, are analyzed throughout Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR; and the alternatives are described in detail in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. A brief discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative follows the summaries of the alternatives. The findings in this section are based on the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

Based on the project objectives and anticipated environmental consequences, and pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following project alternatives were selected for analysis:
 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. The “No Project” Alternative involves continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element as well as the City’s existing plans and policies that would accommodate development in accordance with the existing land use designations. This alternative assumes development of 12,450 units, or approximately 6,648 fewer units than the assumed development under the proposed HEU of 19,098 units.
 Alternative 2: No Rezoning in the Hillside Overlay. One of the implementation programs of the proposed HEU is to increase density in the R-1 District. This alternative would allow increases in the total number of units allowed on a lot, increase the total achievable floor area on a lot, and encourage a mix of unit sizes and densities, adjusting the level of discretion to allow approval of such projects with a Zoning Certificate. Under Alternative 2, this program would not apply to portions of the R-1 district within the Hillside Overlay (R-1H district). Without the rezoning in the R-1H district, approximately 150 units in the hillside area would not be built compared to buildout under the proposed HEU. However, if the R-1H district remains single family residential, SB 9 would apply there. SB 9, signed into law in 2021 and codified as Government Code sections 65852.21, 66411.7, and 66452.6, requires agencies to ministerially approve to up to two residential units on a parcel within a single-family residential zone if the development meets specific objective criteria. SB 9 also allows splitting one lot into two lots within a single-family residential zone and permitting up to two units on each parcel (four total dwelling units on what was formerly a single-unit lot) if the development complies with specific objective criteria. Based on SB 9 trends, it is anticipated that overall this alternative would not decrease development in the hillside overlay zone compared to buildout assumed under the proposed HEU.  Alternative 3: No Middle Housing Rezoning. The Middle Housing Rezoning program of the proposed HEU is intended to increase density in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts. The program would include Zoning Ordinance amendments that would allow increases in the total number of units allowed on a lot, increase the total achievable floor area on a lot, encourage a mix of unit sizes and densities, and adjust the level of discretion to approve such projects with a Zoning Certificate. The Middle Housing Rezoning program was projected to result in 1,745 units over the Housing Element

period. Under Alternative 3, the Middle Housing Rezoning program would not be included in the Housing Element Update. Without Middle Housing Rezoning as part of the proposed project, approximately 975 units fewer units would be constructed compared to buildout under the proposed HEU due to the effect of not rezoning the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts. As noted above in Alternative 2, the number of additional units in the R-1 district would remain the same (770), whether as a result of rezoning or through development of additional units as allowed by SB 9. Accordingly, the 770 units attributed to the R-1 district are not removed in the analysis of this Alternative. This alternative would meet all of the project objectives, but to a lesser degree than the proposed project, because it includes fewer units.

The City hereby concludes that the Final EIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing element Update that address the significant impacts of the project, so as to foster informed public participation and informed decision making. The City finds that the alternatives identified and described in the Final EIR were considered and further finds the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(b). The City finds that Alternative 2 and 3 are not infeasible, because they would meet the CEQA project objectives and would result in the same or less environmental impacts.

5.1.1 Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element. Alternative 1 also assumes that the City’s existing plan and policies would continue to accommodate development in accordance with existing land use designations.

Findings: This alternative would result in less impacts with respect to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire due to the decrease in residential units developed. However, impacts relating to transportation would be greater than under the Project as this alternative would not prioritize development in Priority Development Areas or near transit corridors, and therefore would not decrease VMT since fewer residents would be in proximity to transit, jobs, and services. In addition, this alternative would not eliminate the unavoidably significant impacts related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire. Furthermore, Alternative 1 would not fulfill Project Objective 1 because the continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element would result in the development of fewer residential units and therefore, would not accommodate employment, housing, and population growth projections forecasted through the planning horizon year of 2031 to the same extent as under the proposed HEU. In addition, Alternative 1 would not fulfill Project Objectives 2 and 3 because continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element would not address the need for additional affordable housing options throughout Berkeley in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Alternative 1 is hereby rejected because it would not fulfill Project Objectives 1, 2, or 3.

5.1.2 Alternative 2 – No Rezone in the Hillside Overlay: Alternative 2 would include the same development as the proposed HEU; therefore, impacts would be equal to that of the proposed HEU.

Findings: Alternative 2 would include the same development as the proposed HEU; therefore, impacts would be equivalent to the impacts of the proposed HEU. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable project and cumulative impacts related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire would remain. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would achieve all of the Project Objectives because it would be able to accommodate employment, housing, and population growth projections forecast through the planning horizon year of 2031; increase affordable housing options throughout the city; and place housing in proximity to transit, jobs, services, and community benefits.

Alternative 2 is hereby rejected, because this alternative would not reduce any of the significant unavoidable project and cumulative impacts of the proposed project related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire to a less-than-significant level.

5.1.3 Alternative 3 – No Middle Housing Rezoning. Alternative 3 includes approximately 975 fewer units than the buildout included in the analysis of the proposed project.

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

Alternative 3 is hereby rejected because it would not eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire.

5.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified from among the alternatives evaluated in the EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.

Among the development options, Alterative 3, the No Middle Housing Rezoning Alternative, is considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems and wildfire due to the reduced number of residential units developed compared to the proposed project SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth above, the City has found that the proposed project will result in project and cumulative significant adverse environmental impacts related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire that cannot be avoided following adoption, incorporation into the proposed project, and implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR. In addition, there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or avoid all of the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines §15093(b) provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions. See also Public Resources Code Section 21081(b). Having balanced the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, the City finds that the proposed project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable.

The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits of the proposed project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding sections of these Findings, in the Project itself, and in the record of proceedings as defined in Section [##], above. The City further finds that each of the project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record.

The City further finds that these significant unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project, each of which, independently of the others, constitutes overriding consideration warranting approval of the proposed project. Those benefits, and additional considerations related to this finding, are as follows:
 The proposed project will ensure that the City of Berkeley meets its State-mandated RHNA requirements, including the required buffer to comply with the State Housing Element Law.  The proposed project will encourage affordable housing, which is desired by the community and will contribute toward alleviating a shortage of housing in Berkeley and the region.  The proposed project will encourage development of a variety of types of housing at a range of income levels.
 The proposed project will encourage the development of housing with access to transit, jobs, services, and community benefits in a manner that distributes affordable and special needs housing, including in in high resource neighborhoods, and affirmatively furthers fair housing.

On balance, the City finds that there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update serves to override and outweigh the significant unavoidable effects of the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b), the City finds that these significant adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable.

SECTION 7: INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Berkeley 2023- 2031 Housing Element Update by reference and in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, the determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

SECTION 8: RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
No significant new information was added to the Draft EIR or the Final EIR as a result of the public comment process. The Final EIR responds to comments, and clarifies, amplifies, and makes insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. It does not identify any new significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact requiring major revisions to the Draft EIR. Similarly, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severed significant impacts than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required.

SECTION 9: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials related to the project constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein. Those documents and materials are located in the offices of the custodian for the documents and materials, which is the City of Berkeley Department of Planning and Development, 1947 Center Street, 2nd floor, Berkeley, CA 94704.

SECTION 10: SUMMARY
A. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City has made one or more of the following Findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the Project:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other public agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the Project.

B. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City determines that:

1. All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.

2. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, above.

City of Berkeley 2023-2031
Housing Element Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report
prepared by
City of Berkeley
Land Use Planning Division
1947
Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, California 94704
Conta
ct: Grace Wu, Acting Principal Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
August 2022
Attachment 3, Exhibit C

City of Berkeley 2023-2031
Housing Element Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report

prepared by
City of Berkeley
Land Use Planning Division
1947
Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, California 94704
Contact: Grace Wu, Actin
g Principal Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
August 2022

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Synopsis .........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................ES-3 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ES-3 Areas of Known Controversy .....................................................................................................ES-4 Issues to be Resolved .................................................................................................................ES-4 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR .......................................................................................ES-5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ES-5 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Statement of Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Environmental Impact Report Background .................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Purpose and Legal Authority ........................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Public Review and Participation Process ........................................................................ 1-3

1.5 Scope and Content .......................................................................................................... 1-5

1.6 Issues Found to be Less than Significant ......................................................................... 1-5

1.6.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................... 1-5

1.6.2 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................... 1-6

1.7 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ....................................................................... 1-6

1.8 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-6 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Lead Agency Name, Address, and Contact ..................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Location and Setting ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2-5

2.4 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................... 2-5

2.4.1 Housing Element Update ................................................................................ 2-6

2.4.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ................................................... 2-6

2.4.3 Meeting the RHNA .......................................................................................... 2-7

2.4.4 EIR Projected Buildout .................................................................................. 2-13

2.4.5 Zoning Ordinance Amendments ................................................................... 2-14

2.4.6 Land Use Element Update ............................................................................ 2-14

2.5 Required Approvals ....................................................................................................... 2-15

2.6 California Native American Tribal Consultation ............................................................ 2-15 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 City of Berkeley Setting ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 EIR Projected Buildout Setting ........................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 Cumulative Development ............................................................................................... 3-2 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-2

4.1.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.1-5

4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1

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

ii

4.2.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regul atory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-6 4 .2.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.2-9

4.3 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.3-7

4.3.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.3-14

4.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.1 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.2 Cultural Resources Setting ........................................................................... 4.4-9

4.4.3 Known Historical Resources ...................................................................... 4.4-14

4.4.4 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.4-15

4.5 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-5

4.5.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.5-11

4.6 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.6-15

4.6.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.6-19

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.7-5

4.7.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.7-13

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.8-5

4.8.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.8-13

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 4.9-1 4 .9.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.9-5

4.9.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.9-11

4.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.10-1

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.10-3

4.10.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.10-8

4.11 Noise .......................................................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.11-1

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.11-7

4.11.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.11-10

4.12 Population and Housing ............................................................................................. 4.12-1

4.12.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.12-1

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.12-2

4.12.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.12-7

4.13 Public Services and Recreation .................................................................................. 4.13-1

4.13.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.13-1

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.13-5

4.13.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.13-11

Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Report iii

4.14 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.14-1

4.14.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.14-8

4.14.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.14-17

4.15 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.15.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.15.2 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.15-3

4.15.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.15-5

4.16 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 4.16-1

4.16.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.16-1

4.16.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.16-6

4.16.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.16-12

4.17 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................... 4.17-1

4.17.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.17-1

4.17.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.17-7

4.17.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.17-15 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided ............................................ 5-1

5.2 Growth Inducement ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.2.1 Population Growth ......................................................................................... 5-1

5.2.2 Economic Growth ........................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth .................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ...................................................... 5-3 6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative .............................................................................. 6-1

6.1.1 Description ...................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6-2

6.2 Alternative 2: No Rezoning in the Hillside Overlay ......................................................... 6-7

6.2.1 Description ...................................................................................................... 6-7

6.2.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6-7

6.3 Alternative 3: No Middle Housing Rezoning ................................................................... 6-9

6.3.1 Description ...................................................................................................... 6-9

6.3.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6-9

6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 6-14 7 References .................................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................ 7-16 Tables
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts ......................................................................................................................ES-6 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response ............................................................................ 1-3 Table 2-1 RHNA and Percentage of Income Distribution for Berkeley ...................................... 2-7 Table 2-2 EIR Projected Buildout ............................................................................................. 2-13 Table 4.2-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................. 4.2-4

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

iv
Table 4.2-2 Ambient Air Quality at Nearest Monitoring Stations .............................................. 4.2-5 Table 4.2-3 BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Screening Levels .................................................. 4.2-10 Table 4.2-4 BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds....................................... 4.2-11 Table 4.2-5 BAAQMD Odor Source Thresholds ....................................................................... 4.2-12 Table 4.2-6 Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Plan Control Measures ...................... 4.2-14 Table 4.2-7 Increase in Population Compared to VMT Under Project .................................... 4.2-19 Table 4.5-1 2020 Annual Electricity Consumption ..................................................................... 4.5-2 Table 4.5-2 2020 Annual Natural Gas Consumption .................................................................. 4.5-3 Table 4.5-3 2020 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption ..................................................... 4.5-4 Table 4.5-4 Project Operational Energy Usage ........................................................................ 4.5-14 Table 4.5-5 Consistency with State Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plans .............. 4.5-16 Table 4.5-6 Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies .................................. 4.5-17 Table 4.6-1 Berkeley Soil Parameters ........................................................................................ 4.6-3 Table 4.6-2 Paleontological Sensitivity of Geologic Units in Berkeley ..................................... 4.6-25 Table 4.7-1 Operational GHG Emissions .................................................................................. 4.7-17 Table 4.7-2 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 ....................................................... 4.7-19 Table 4.7-3 City of Berkeley General Plan Consistency for GHG Emissions ............................. 4.7-20 Table 4.7-4 Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Measures .................... 4.7-21 Table 4.10-1 Approximate Land Use Summary ......................................................................... 4.10-1 Table 4.10-2 Berkeley Zoning Districts ....................................................................................... 4.10-6 Table 4.10-3 Zoning District and Corresponding General Plan Land Use Classification ............ 4.10-7 Table 4.10-4 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 ..................................................... 4.10-10 Table 4.10-5 Project Consistency with Relevant General Plan Goals and Policies .................. 4.10-12 Table 4.11-1 Building Vibration Damage Potential .................................................................... 4.11-5 Table 4.11-2 Vibration Annoyance Potential ............................................................................. 4.11-5 Table 4.11-3 Noise Measurements ............................................................................................ 4.11-6 Table 4.11-4 Reco mmended Maximum Noise Levels ................................................................ 4.11-9 Table 4.11-5 Construction Noise Criteria ................................................................................. 4.11-10 Table 4.11-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ......................................... 4.11-13 Table 4.11-7 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................ 4.11-14 Table 4.11-8 Typical Construction Noise Level at 50 Feet ....................................................... 4.11-15 Table 4.11-9 Daily Vehicle Trip Summary ................................................................................ 4.11-20 Table 4.11-10 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................ 4.11-21 Table 4.12-1 Current Population and Housing Stock for Berkeley ............................................ 4.12-1 Table 4.12-2 2040 Plan Bay Area Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Berkeley ................................................................................................................ 4.12-2 Table 4.12-3 2050 Plan Bay Area Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Northwest Alameda County .................................................................................. 4.12-2 Table 4.12-4 Housing Element Update Population Estimates ................................................... 4.12-8

Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Report v
Table 4.14-1 Demographics and VMT Per Capita, 2020 Baseline Conditions ............................ 4.14-3 Table 4.14-2 AC Transit Service in Berkeley ............................................................................... 4.14-4 Table 4.14-3 VMT Thresholds by Land Use Type for Projects.................................................. 4.14-19 Table 4.14-4 VMT Results Summary ........................................................................................ 4.14-20 Table 4.16-1 Estimated Wastewater Generation for the Proposed HEU ................................ 4.16-14 Table 4.16-2 Average Annual Demand Projections by Customer Use Category (MGD) .......... 4.16-17 Table 4.16-3 Preliminary EBMUD Baseline Supply and Demand Analysis ............................... 4.16-18 Table 4.16-4 Estimated Water Use for the Proposed HEU ...................................................... 4.16-20 Table 4.16-5 Estimated Solid Waste Generation for the Proposed HEU ................................. 4.16-22 Table 6-1 Housing Units under No Project Alternative .............................................................. 6-2 Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................... 6-15 Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process .................................................................................. 1-8 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ....................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 City of Berkeley Location ........................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Map of Land Uses in the City of Berkeley .................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2-4 EIR Sites Inventory Locations ..................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-5 Middle Housing Rezoning Districts .......................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-6 Southside Area ......................................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 4.1-1 Transit Priority Areas in Berkeley ............................................................................ 4.1-3 Figure 4.3-1 Landcover Types in Berkeley ................................................................................... 4.3-2 Figure 4.6-1 Fault Lines in the Vicinity of Berkeley ..................................................................... 4.6-2 Figure 4.6-2 Berkeley Soils Map .................................................................................................. 4.6-4 Figure 4.6-3 Berkeley Liquefaction Susceptibility ....................................................................... 4.6-7 Figure 4.6-4 Berkeley Landslide Susceptibility ............................................................................ 4.6-9 Figure 4.6-5 Regional Geologic Map ......................................................................................... 4.6-11 Figure 4.6-6 Geol ogic Units with High Paleontological Sensitivity ............................................ 4.6-26 Figure 4.8-1 Known Hazardous Material Sites in Berkeley ......................................................... 4.8-4 Figure 4.8-2 Hazardous Material Sites within 0.25 mile of a School ........................................... 4.8-6 Figure 4.9-1 Surface Water in Berkeley ...................................................................................... 4.9-3 Figure 4.9-2 FEMA Flood Zones within Berkeley ......................................................................... 4.9-4 Figure 4.11-1 Examples of Typical Noise Levels .......................................................................... 4.11-2 Figure 4.13-1 Fire and Police Stations in Berkeley ...................................................................... 4.13-2 Figure 4.13-2 Parks in Berkeley ................................................................................................... 4.13-4 Figure 4.17-1 Berkeley Fire Zones ............................................................................................... 4.17-5 Figure 4.17-2 Housing Inventory Sites and the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ................ 4.17-6 Figure 6-1 Hillside Overlay District .............................................................................................. 6-8

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

vi
Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Comments Appendix B Special Status Species Tables
Appendix C Eligibility Status of Housing Inventory Sites Appendix D Energy Modeling Results
Appendix E Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Results
Appendix F Noise M odeling Results and Vibration Calculations Appendix G Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Assessment
Appendix H AB 52 Correspondence

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the City of Berkeley Housing Element Update (proposed project). This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, alternatives to the proposed project, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the proposed project.

Project Synopsis
Lead Agency/Project Proponent
City of Berkeley
1947 Center Street, 2
nd Floor
Berkeley, California 94704
(510) 981-7400
Lead Agency Contact Person
Grace Wu, Acting Principal Planner
(510) 981-7400
Project Description
This EIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU), herein referred to as the “proposed HEU” or “proposed project.” The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Section 2, Project Description.

The proposed HEU would amend the City of Berkeley’s General Plan by replacing the current Housing Element with the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element and amending the City’s General Plan as needed for consistency and HEU implementation.

The proposed HEU establishes policies and programs to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community. In addition, the sites inventory provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) through the year 2031, as established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The City is required by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to meet its RHNA and identify sufficient sites to accommodate 8,934 residential units to meet a fair share of the region’s anticipated population growth between 2023 to 2031. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15 to 30 percent above RHNA for lower- and moderate-income categories to account for No Net Loss (SB 166). Thus, the overall sites inventory must accommodate between approximately 10,274 and 11,614 units. The sites must be zoned to allow for residential uses and the zoning standards must allow for the unit capacities assumed in the sites inventory.

The City assessed capacity in three categories to meet the RHNA: likely sites, pipeline sites, and opportunity sites. The Likely Sites, Pipeline Sites and Opportunity Sites together constitute the EIR Sites Inventory. The specific number and location of units actually developed during the Housing Element period will differ from those included in the EIR Sites Inventory, but any difference would

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

ES-2
result in fewer total units and a reduction of total physical sites for housing development. The sites inventory includes a total of 15,153 units, which also accounts for 800 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on recent development trends.

The City has determined based on the sites inventory that rezoning is not needed to meet the RHNA.

However, recent development activity suggests current zoning alone does not deliver the level of deed-restr
icted affordable housing and economic and geographic diversity that the HEU aims to achieve. Therefore, the HEU contains implementation programs and zoning policies to encourage additional housing, particularly affordable housing that supports a diversity of income levels and household types. These include:
 Middle Housing Rezoning. R-1 R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts are anticipated to increase in density based on the State’s adoption of SB 9 and a proposed HEU program to facilitate increased development in lower density districts. The City would review and amend the Zoning Code and applicable objective development standards to encourage a mix of dwelling types and sizes, housing for middle- and moderate-income households, and increase the availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes to reduce displacement risk for residents living in overcrowded units or experiencing high housing cost burden. Using HCD’s methodology, and to ensure that proposed zoning would not result in a reduction in allowable residential development, the EIR assumes 770 additional units distributed throughout the R-1 districts for the 2023-2031 period. Additionally, based on current development trends and anticipated zoning changes, 975 additional units are distributed throughout the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts, for a total of 1,745 middle housing units in the 2023-2031 period.  Southside Zoning Modification Project. Southside Zoning Modification Project proposes amendments that could facilitate an additional 1,000 units compared to existing Southside Plan Area zoning. These proposed zoning modifications and a proposed HEU program for a local density bonus are intended to increase housing capacity and production to better meet student housing demand in the Southside through changes in a targeted number of zoning parameters:
building heights, building footprints (including setbacks and lot coverage), parking, ground-floor residential use, and adjustments to the existing zoning district boundaries. Given past development trends and the limited number of opportunity sites in the Southside, this EIR assumes an additional 1,000 units in portions of the C-T, R-S and R-SMU districts within the Southside for the 2023-2031 period.

For the purposes of the HEU CEQA analysis, this EIR assesses a higher amount of development potential than the total HEU sites inventory capacity in order to fully analyze possible environmental impacts based on proposed HEU implementation programs, account for the possibility that proposed projects could utilize State Density Bonus, and to account for a scenario in which development occurs at a rate higher than it has historically. The buildout projection for this EIR consists of a projection based on the EIR Sites Inventory of 15,153 units, an additional 1,200 units at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, as well as projections for implementation programs related to the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R zoning districts and the Southside Zoning Modification Project, totaling 2,745 units. Overall, this EIR assumes 19,098 units associated with the proposed HEU.

The specific number and location of units actually developed during the Housing Element period will differ from those included in the EIR Projected Buildout, but any difference would result in fewer total units and a reduction of total physical sites for housing development. However, future development proposals would be reviewed to determine whether their impacts fall within the scope

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-3
of this EIR, or if additional site-specific environmental review will be required. Subsequent environmental documents, when required, could tier from the HEU EIR and focus on any new significant impacts in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15385.

Project Objectives
The project presents a comprehensive set of housing policies and programs for the years 2023-2031 and will encompass the entire City of Berkeley. The project will be based on the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) 6th Cycle RHNA and will:

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

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

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

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

Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this EIR examines alternatives to the proposed project. Studied alternatives include the following three alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 3 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.  Alternative 1: No Project
 Alternative 2: No Rezoning in Hillside Overlay
 Alternative 3: No Middle Housing Rezoning
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. The “No Project” Alternative 1 involves continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element. Alternative 1 also assumes that the City’s existing plan and policies would continue to accommodate development in accordance with existing land use designations. This alternative would result in less impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire due to the decrease in residential units developed. However, impacts relating to transportation would be greater than under the Project as this alternative would not prioritize development in Priority Development Areas or near transit corridors, and therefore would not decrease VMT since fewer residents would be in proximity to transit, jobs, and services. In addition, this alternative would not eliminate the unavoidably significant impacts related to historical

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

ES-4
resources, construction noise, and wildfire. Furthermore, Alternative 1 would not fulfill Project Objective 1 because the continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element would result in the development of fewer residential units and therefore, would not accommodate employment, housing, and population growth projections forecasted through the planning horizon year of 2031 to the same extent as under the proposed HEU. In addition, Alternative 1 would not fulfill Project Objectives 2 and 3 because continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element would not address the need for additional affordable housing options throughout Berkeley in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Alternative 2: the No Rezoning in the Hillside Overlay. An implementation program of the proposed HEU is to increase density in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts. Under this alternative, this program would not apply to portions of the R-1 district within the Hillside Overlay (R-1H district). Alternative 2 would include the same development as the proposed HEU; therefore, impacts would be equal to that of the proposed HEU. Alternative 2 would continue to fulfill Project Objectives as it would be able to accommodate employment, housing, and population growth projections forecasted through the planning horizon year of 2031; increase affordable housing options throughout the city; and place housing in proximity to transit, jobs, services, and community benefits.

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

Nevertheless, as Alternative 3 slightly reduces the severity of impacts resulting from the proposed project, it is the environmentally superior alternative.

Refer to Section 6, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.

Areas of Known Controversy
The EIR scoping process identified several areas of known controversy for the proposed project including transportation and biological resources impacts. Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR and input received at the EIR scoping meeting held by the City are summarized in Section 1, Introduction.

Issues to be Resolved
There are no issues to be resolved that have been identified.

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-5
Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
Due to the unique conditions of the City, there is no substantial evidence that significant impacts would occur related to agricultural and forestry resources and mineral resources. All other CEQA topics are discussed in the EIR.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed project, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required). Although distinct from mitigation measures, project design features (PDFs) are also listed because they will be included as conditions of approval by the City to avoid potential biological and geological impacts.

Impacts are categorized as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact: The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

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

ES-6
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Aesthetics
Impact AES-1. Implementation of the proposed HEU would alter the development pattern of the city such that scenic views of and from public viewpoints could be adversely affected. Potential future new development throughout the city could block views of a scenic vista from some public viewpoints. However, this would occur on individual sites and would be limited. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact AES-2. The
re are no designated or eligible Scenic Highways in
Berkeley or with substantial views of Berkeley. Implementation of the proposed HEU not damage scenic resources visible from a Scenic Highway. No impact would occur.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact AES-3. Berkeley is urbanized and future development under the proposed HEU would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Le
ss than
Significant
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.

None required. Less
than
Significant
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. The proposed HEU would not conflict with the control measur
es 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.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact AQ-2. C
onstruction facilitated by the project would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, which would affect local air quality.

Adherence to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval would reduce construction emissions. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction Measures. As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future development projects within the project sites to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines), outlined below.

Less than
Significant

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- site shall be covered.

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacture’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper conditions prior to
operation.

Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints.

This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Impact AQ-3. Construction activities for individual projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Additionally, development facilitated by the project would site new sensitive land uses near Interstate 580/80 which may expose them to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

AQ-2 Construction Health Risk Assessment. For individual projects (excluding ADUs, single-family residences, and duplexes) where construction activities would occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, would last longer than two months, and would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment, the project applicant shall prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA). The HRA shall determine potential risk and compare the risk to the following BAAQMD thresholds:

Less than
Significant

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

ES-8
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
 Non-compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan;  Inc
reased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
 Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or  Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average
AQ-3 TAC Exposure Reduction Building Measures. The following design features shall be incorporated for residential development located within 1,000 feet of I-580/80 or on a lot that fronts on a section of roadway with 10,000 vehicles per day or more in order to reduce exposure of proposed residences to TACs from vehicles and stationary combustion engines (i.e., generators):

1. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high efficiency particulate filters (HEPA).

These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 99.97 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system (U.S. EPA 2022). The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter. Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors.

2. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system.

3. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project.

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact

4. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph).

5. Prepare an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems, consistent with manufacturers’ recommendations.

The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system.

Impact AQ-4. De
velopment facilitated by the project would not create
objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people.

This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. Development facilitated by the proposed HEU may result in
direct or indirect impacts to special-status species or their associated habitats, and impacts to nesting birds. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact BIO-2. Imple
mentation of the proposed HEU may directly or
indirectly impact riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or protected wetlands in the City of Berkeley. Implementation of federal, State, and local regulations and policies would ensure riparian habitat and wetlands are not significantly impacted. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact BIO-3. Implementation of the proposed HEU may result in impacts to state or federally protected wetlands. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less
than
Significant
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.

None required. Less
than
Significant
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.

None required. Less
than
Significant

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

ES-10
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact BIO-6. Imple mentation of the proposed HEU would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

None required. No Impact
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. De velopment accommodated by the proposed Housing Element Update could adversely affect known and previously unidentified historic-period resources. Impacts to historic-period resources would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

CUL-1 Historic Context Statement, Cultural Resources Survey and Designations. During the period of this Housing Element, the City should conduct a citywide historic context statement and a cultural resource survey to identify historic resources, with priority given to sites in the EIR Site Inventory, to determine if there are designed built environment features which are over 40 years of age proposed to be altered or demolished.

Designation of historic or cultural resources should be conducted by the Landmarks Preservation Commission pursuant to 3.24.260 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

CUL-2 Historical Resources Discretionary Review. For projects that are subject to discretionary review that occur during the Housing Element period where a historical-age building or structure that has not been previously evaluated is present, a historical resources assessment shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level survey in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines to determine if the property qualifies for federal, state, or local historical resources designation.

All age eligible properties shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a technical memorandum with Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms.

Should a property be found to be a qualifying historical resource, the project shall be subject to the City’s regulations for permit review, including by the Preservation Landmarks Commission pursuant to Chapter 3.24.260, and/or by the Zoning Adjustments Board pursuant to Chapter 23.326 of the City of Berkeley Municipal Code. Efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated. Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources built environment Significant and
Unavoidable

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
assessment shall also identify and specify the treatment of character- defining features and construction activities.

Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR § 15126.4(b)(1)). Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how the project complies with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. These may include documentation of the resource in a manner consistent with the standards of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS). Documentation should include full descriptive and historical narrative, measured drawings, and medium format photographs, all in archivally stable format.

Impact CUL-2. Development accommodated by the housing element update could adversely affect identified and previously unidentified archaeological Resources. Impacts would be less than significant with required adherence to the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for archaeological resources.

None required. Less
than
Significant
Impact CUL-3. Ground-disturbing activities associated with development under the housing element update could result in damage to or destruction of human burials. Impacts would be less than significant through adherence to state health and safety code section 7050.5 and public resources code section 5097.98.

None required. Less
than
Significant

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

ES-12
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Cumulative Impact: Development pursuant to the Housing Element Update and the LRDP would have the potential to impact historical resources. Historic-period resources could be vulne
rable to development
activities that could result in damage to or demolition of cultural resources. As noted above in CUL-2, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources. Adherence to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce or avoid some but not all potential impacts to historical resources in Berkeley. Therefore, cumulative historical resources impacts would be significant, and the project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable.

No feasible mitigation measures have been identified. Cumulatively considerable
impact.

Energy
Impact E-1. Project construction and operation would require temporary and l
ong-term consumption of energy resources. However, with adherence to State and local regulations, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less
than
Significant
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.

None required. Less than
Significant
Geology and Soils
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.

None required. Less
than
Significant
Impact GEO-2. With adherence to applicable laws and regulations, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Ther
efore, this impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact GEO-3. Portions of Berkeley are located on expansive soils.

However, with required implementation of standard engineering practices, impacts associated with unstable or expansive soils would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact GEO-4. The p roposed project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact GEO-5. Development facilitated by the proposed HEU has the potential to impact paleontological resources. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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

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

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

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

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

Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work) in sediments assigned a high paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified Paleontological Resources Monitor, as defined by the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist based on the observation of the geologic setting from initial ground disturbance, and subject to the review and approval by the City. If the Qualified Professional Paleontologist determines that full- time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions once the full depth of excavations has been reached, they may Less than
Significant with
Mitigation

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

ES-14
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or ceased entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist at that time. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. A Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources.

Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the City. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1. Fu ture development under the proposed HEU would not directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. GHG emissions from the project would not exceed BAAQMD 2031 interpolated thresholds. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less
than
Significant
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.

None required. Less than
Significant

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the proposed HEU would facilitate new residential development in Berkeley. Proposed new residential uses would not involve the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, construction of new residences could result in an increase in the overall routine, transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials in Berkeley for construction activities. Nonetheless, required compliance with applicable regulations related to hazardous materials and compliance with General Plan policies would minimize the risk of releases and exposure to these materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

None required. Less
than
Significant
Impact HAZ-2. Imple
mentation of the proposed HEU may result in
hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements would minimize risks to schools and students, resulting in a less than significant impact.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact HAZ-3. Implementation of the proposed HEU would
accommodate development on or near hazardous materials sites.

However, compliance with applicable regulations and the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval requiring site characterization and cleanup would minimize hazards from development on contaminated sites. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less
than
Significant
Impact HAZ-4. There are no airports within two miles of the Berkeley, and Berkeley is not within the influence area of an airport. No impact would occur.

None required. Less
than
Significant
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.

None required. Less than
Significant.

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

ES-16
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1. Future development under the proposed HEU would involve ground-disturbing activities and the use of heavy machinery that could release materials, including sediments and fuels, which could adversely affect water quality. Operation of potential future development could also result in discharges to storm drains that could be contaminated and affect downstream waters. However, compliance with required permits and existing regulations, and implementation of Best Management Practices contained therein, would ensure that potential water quality impacts would be less than significant.

None required. Less
than
Significant
Impact HYD-2. Futu
re development facilitated under the proposed HEU
would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table.

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

None required. Less than
Significant
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.

None required. Less
than
Significant
Impact HYD-4. Development under the proposed HEU would place housing and other structures within FEMA-designated Flood Hazard Areas and tsunami zones. However, compliance with the General Plan, the BMC, and the California Health and Safety Code would reduce potential effects associated with flood events. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less
than
Significant

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1. The proposed HEU includes policies and programs to encourage housing development on underutilized and vacant sites and along established commercial corridors and neighborhoods.

Development under the proposed HEU would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.

None required. No Impact
Imp
act LU-2. Th
e proposed HEU would be consistent with the goals and
policies of Plan Bay Area 2050, the Berkeley General Plan, and the BMC.

This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Noise
Impact NOI-1. Construction associated with housing development accommo
dated under the proposed HEU would be required to comply with the allowed daytime construction hours as set forth in the Berkeley Municipal Code and therefore, would not occur during nighttime hours when people are more sensitive to noise. Larger developments could involve construction with lengthy durations, substantial soil movement, use of large, heavy-duty equipment, and/or pile driving near noise- sensitive land uses that would exceed the applicable FTA daytime noise limits. implementation of City Standard Conditions of Approval for construction noise would reduce construction noise levels, but may not reduce them to below thresholds for every project. Therefore, impacts generated by temporary construction noise would be significant and unavoidable.

No feasible mitigation measures have been identified. Significant and Unavoidable
Impact NOI-2. Housing development accommodated under the proposed HEU could include mechanical equipment (i.e., HVAC), delivery and trash trucks, and other noise-generating activities. However, such activities would be similar to the existing noise environment. In addition, on-site activities would be required to comply with applicable noise standards in the Berkeley Municipal Code. Furthermore, while housing development would generate vehicle trips in the city, the increase in mobile noise would not result in a perceptible (3-dBA or greater) noise increase. Permanent noise increases due to operation of new development under the proposed HEU would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant

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

ES-18
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact NOI-3. Housing development accommodated under the proposed HEU would not involve operational activities that would result in substantial vibration levels (e.g., use of heavy equipment or machinery). Construction activities would be required to implement the City’s
Standard Conditions of Approval that control vibration. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Impact NOI-4. Housing developments accommodated under the proposed HEU would not be exposed to intermittent noise levels from overhead flight patterns from airports in the city as there are none located within the City. Furthermore, while the project would not emphasize building housing in the immediate vicinity of the airport, all residential development would, nonetheless, be required to incorporate noise insulation features per State and local standards to reduce interior noise levels to below 45 dBA. Therefore, the impact of airport or airstrip operations on new development would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Cumulative Impact: Construction of future development projects in Berkeley would produce temporary noise impacts that would be localized to a project site and sensitive receivers within the immediate vicinity. Therefore, only sensitive receivers located in close proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected by each activity.

Nonetheless, construction activities associated with individual housing development projects accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update may overlap for some time with construction activities for other development projects. Based on the locations of the potential housing sites displayed in Figure 2-4 of Section 2, Project Description, this could substantially increase noise levels at specific neighboring noise-sensitive receivers since many sites are located in proximity to each other. Therefore, concurrent construction of development projects accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update could result in cumulatively considerable impacts. This impact would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

No feasible mitigation measures have been identified. Cumulatively considerable
impact.

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-19
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
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.

None required. Less
than
Significant
Impact POP-2. Imple
mentation 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.

None required. Less than
Significant
Public Services and Recreation
Impact PS-1. Development facilitated by the proposed HEU would result in an i
ncrease of population and buildings within Berkeley. The projected population increase would increase demand for fire protection services and potentially create the need for a new or altered fire station.

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

None required. Less
than
Significant
Impact PS-2. Deve
lopment 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.

None required. Less than
Significant
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.

None required. Less
than
Significant

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

ES-20
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact PS-4. Development associated with the proposed HEU would increase the population of Berkeley and the use of existing parks and recreational facilities. Howe
ver, 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.

None required. Less than
Significant
Transportation
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.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact TRA-2. Th
e proposed HEU not conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact TRA-3. The proposed HEU would not substantially increase hazards because of a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact TRA-4. The proposed HEU would not have the potential to result in inadequate emergency access. This impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1. Development during the planning period of the proposed HEU
could adversely impact tribal cultural resources due to ground disturbing activity during construction. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Monitoring. For future projects that are determined through tribal consultation to potentially affect tribal cultural resources, in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts to Native American cultural objects and human remains discovered during construction, tribal cultural monitors will be retained to monitor work done in areas of Tribal concern, as determined through tribal consultation. If Native American cultural objects and/or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until the objects have been inspected and evaluated by tribal cultural monitors and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards of the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR Part 61). The archaeologist shall, in accordance with the appropriate Guidelines, identify and evaluate the Less than
Significant

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-21
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
significance of the discovery and develop recommendations for treatment in consultation with the affected Tribe to ensure any impacts to the cultural resource are less than significant. The preferred mitigation is avoidance. If avoidance is not feasible, Project impacts shall be mitigated in consultation with the affected Tribe consistent with the CEQA Guidelines for Determining the Significance of and Impacts to Cultural Resource, Archaeological Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources. Such mitigation may include, but is not limited to, additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring and/or an archaeological data recovery program. A Native American monitor shall be retained to monitor the ground disturbance when it is suspected that a TCR might be encountered.

Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1. De velopment under the proposed HEU would require utility service and connections for water supply, wastewater conveyance, and stormwater conveyance, as well as telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas. Existing utility systems for water, wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities in Berkeley have sufficient capacity to serve the project.

Relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities resulting in significant environmental impacts would not occur, and adequate wastewater capacity exists to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. impacts would be less than significant.

None required. Less
than
Significant
Impact UTIL-2. Devel
opment 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.

None required. Less than
Significant
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.

None required. Less
than
Significant

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

ES-22
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
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. Significant and Unavoidable
Impact W-2. Implementation of the proposed HEU would encourage development in the hillside areas located near a State Responsibility Area and in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. New development would be required to comply with extensive regulations and fire safety provisions in the Berkeley Municipal Code, including the Fire Code. Based on the existing regulatory framework and project review process with Berkeley Fire Department, impacts would be generally avoided.

However, it remains possible that even with existing regulations, construction or other human activities related to development in or near an SRA or in a VHFHSZ could exacerbate wildfire risk and expose existing and new residents to pollutant concentrations and uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Additionally, by increasing the population of the WUI area, more people will be directly threatened when a wildland fire occurs.

Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable No feasible mitigation measures have been identified. Significant and Unavoidable
Impact W-3. Implementation of the proposed HEU would encourage development of housing on inventory sites and in the Hillside Overlay district located near a State Responsibility Area and in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The proposed HEU could expose people and structures to risk due to the terrain and slope in the Berkeley hills. This could result in potential risks such as landslides. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

No feasible mitigation measures have been identified. Significant and Unavoidable

Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-23
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact W-4. Implementation of the proposed HEU would encourage development of housing on inventory sites and in the R-, R-2, an d R-2a
districts located near a State Responsibility Area and in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, the area is already developed and served by existing infrastructure and it is not anticipated that installation of new infrastructure or a substantial increase in the maintenance of existing infrastructure would occur. Should additional maintenance or construction of such infrastructure occur, implementation of Mitigation Measure w-1 would reduce the risk of fire during construction. Overall, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

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

Significant and
Unavoidable
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. Cumulatively considerable
impact.

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

ES-24

This page intentionally left blank.

Introduction

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
This document is a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that analyzes the City of Berkeley’s proposed Housing Element Update (hereafter also referred to as the “proposed HEU” or “proposed project”). This section discusses: (1) the purpose of this Program EIR; (2) the type of environmental document prepared and future streamlining opportunities; (3) the legal basis for preparing an EIR; (4) the public review and participation process; (5) the scope and content of the Program EIR; (6) the issue areas found not to be significant; (7) the lead, responsible, and trustee agencies pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and (8) an overview of the environmental review process required under CEQA. The proposed project is described in detail in Section 2, Project Description.

1.1 Statement of Purpose
This Program EIR has been prepared in compliance with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15121[a]). In general, the purpose of an EIR is to:

Analyze the environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the project; Inform decision-makers, responsible and trustee agencies and members of the public as to the range of the environmental impacts of the project;
Recommend a set of measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts; and Analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project.

As the lead agency for preparing this Program EIR, the City of Berkeley will rely on the EIR analysis of environmental effects in its review and consideration of the proposed project prior to approval.

1.2 Environmental Impact Report Background
This document is a Program EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a) states that:

A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria, to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

As a programmatic document, this EIR presents a citywide assessment of the impacts of the proposed project. Analysis of site-specific impacts of individual projects is not required in a Program EIR, unless components of the program are known in sufficient detail. No specific projects are currently defined to the level that would allow for such an analysis. Individual specific environmental analysis of each housing development project will be performed as necessary by the City prior to each project being considered for approval. This Program EIR serves as a first-tier CEQA environmental document supporting second-tier environmental documents, if required.

Project applicants implementing subsequent projects may undertake future environmental review depending on the results of the analysis in this Program EIR and requirements of the mitigation

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

1-2
measures. If project applicants are required to prepare subsequent environmental documents, they may reference the appropriate information from this Program EIR regarding secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives and other relevant factors. If the City finds that implementation of a later activity would have no new effects and that no new mitigation measures would be required, that activity would require no additional CEQA review and a consistency finding would be prepared. Where subsequent environmental review is required, such review would focus on significant effects specific to the project, or its site, that have not been considered in this Program EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168).

CEQA Guidelines Sect
ion 15151 provides the following standards related to the adequacy of an EIR:

An Environmental Impact Report should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-mak
ers with information which enables them to decide which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among experts. The courts have looked not for perfection; but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 provides the following additional standards related to the adequacy of an EIR:

The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy.
(b) An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption, or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow.

1.3 Purpose and Legal Authority
The proposed project requires the discretionary approval of the Berkeley City Council; therefore, the project is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15121 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14), the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that:
“...will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.”
This Program EIR is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Berkeley decision makers. The process will include public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council to consider certification of a Final Program EIR and approval of the proposed project.

Introduction

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-3

1.4 Public Review and Participation Process
The City of Berkeley distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period commencing January 14, 2022 and closing February 14, 2022. In addition, the City held a virtual scoping meeting on February 9, 2022. The meeting, held at 7 p.m., provided information about the proposed project to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders and residents/community members and provided an opportunity for interested parties to submit verbal comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR. Due to the COVID- 19 pandemic, the virtual meeting was held through an online meeting platform and a call-in number. No members of the public provided verbal comments at the scoping hearing, but several Planning Commissioners provided verbal comments.

The City received letters from seven agencies, individuals, and organizations in response to the NOP during the public review period. The NOP and scoping comment letters are presented in Appendix NOP of this Program EIR. Table 1-1 summarizes the content of the letters and where the issues raised are addressed in the Program EIR.

Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed Comment Letters from Public Agencies
East Bay
Muni
cipal Utility
District (EBMUD)
 Water service for new multi-uni t structures shall be individually metered or sub-mete
red in compliance with
Senate Bill 7.
 EBMUD will not install pipes or conduct service in
contaminated soils.
 EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plan and
interceptor system have adequate capacity to
accommodate the proposed wastewater flow in dry
conditions. However, additional wastewater
infrastructure may be required to accommodate
proposed wastewater flow in wet conditions.
 Project sponsors are required to provide an estimate of expected water demand for potential recycled water uses for each project in the HEU to explore options and
requirements related to recycled water use.
 Requests City include compliance with AB 325 “Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance” as condition of
approval on individual projects within the HEU.

Section 4.16, Utilities and Service
Systems, includes an analysis of
wastewater capacity and water
efficiency requirements.

Native American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)
 Recommends consultation with all California Native
American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project according to AB 52 and SB 18.

Consultation required by AB 52 and
SB 18 was carried out by the City of
Berkeley. A summary of the
process and an analysis of impacts
to tribal cultural resources are
discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural
Resources, of this EIR.

Alameda County
Transportation
Commission
(ACTC)
 States if the project generates at least 100 p.m. peak hour trips over existing conditions, the Congestion
Management Program (CMP) Land Use Analysis Program
requires the City to conduct a transportation impact
analysis of the project utilizing the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model for CMP Land Use Analysis.

Transportation impact analyses are
included in Section 4.14,
Transportation.

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

1-4
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed  Identifies Metropolitan Transportation System facilities, service operators in area and requests all potential
impacts to these facilities, operators, and users be
addressed in the DEIR.
 Discusses mitigation measure requirements and
suggestions, including multimodal tradeoffs, TDM
measures, and consistency with transportation plans.

Comment Letters from Organizations
East Bay for
Every
one/East
Bay YIMBY
 Suggests goals and policies to be considered in the HEU and that the EIR explore the consequences of the
recommended policies.

The commenter’s opinions on the
proposed HEU will be taken into
consideration by City decision-
makers but do not pertain to the
EIR analysis.

The purpose of the EIR is to
consider the implication of HEU
policies to meet RHNA goals as well
as additional zoning changes to
encourage housing in the City, and
the environmental consequences
of HEU implementation are
analyzed throughout this EIR.

Summary of Verbal and Written Comments by Topic Area
HEU components  Several commenters provided recommendations for goa
ls, policies, or programs to be included in the HEU, or expressed support for additional housing in the City.

The c ommenters’ opinions on the
proposed HEU will be taken into
consideration by City decision-
makers but do not pertain to the
EIR analysis.

Alternatives  The EIR should consider an alternative with a greater number of units.

Alternatives are analyzed in
Section 6, Alternatives.

Biological
Resources
 Concern about wildlife impacts
 Suggestion to use bird safe glass
 Suggestion to use landscaping that provides habitat and food for area wildlife.

Section 4.3, Biological Resources,
includes an analysis of impacts to
biological resources including birds
and wildlife.

Transportation  Concerns about a lack of parking in the City  Concerns about traffic in the City
 Concerns about impacts of ride sharing and additional traffic impacts.
 Concerns about rider capacity for public transit including AC Transit and BART
Section 4.14, Transportation,
includes an analysis of
transportation-related impact for
those items required under CEQA.

Parking and traffic impacts are not
environmental issues pursuant to
CEQA.

Introduction

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-5

1.5 Scope and Content
As discussed in Section 1.4, a NOP was prepared and circulated (Appendix NOP), and responses received on the NOP were considered when setting the scope and content of the environmental information in this EIR. Sections 4.1 through 4.17 address the resource areas outlined in the bullet points below. Section 5, Other CEQA Required Discussions, covers topics including growth-inducing effects, irreversible environmental effects, and significant and unavoidable impacts. Environmental topic areas addressed in this EIR include:

Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
In preparing the EIR, use was made of pertinent City policies and guidelines, certified EIRs and adopted CEQA documents, and other background documents. A full reference list can be found in Section 7, References and Preparers.

The alternatives section of the EIR (Section 6) was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 and focuses on alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse effects associated with the project while feasibly attaining most of the basic project objectives. In addition, the alternatives section identifies the “environmentally superior” alternative among the alternatives assessed. The alternatives evaluated include the CEQA-required “No Project” alternative and three alternative development scenarios for the project area.

The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 (summarized above in Section 1.2) provides the standard of adequacy on which this document is based.

1.6 Issues Found to be Less than Significant
The following issue areas are determined to have less-than-significant impacts due to the unique conditions of the City of Berkeley and thus are not analyzed in detail beyond the discussion included below.

1.6.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The City of Berkeley lacks agricultural lands or forest. Neither agriculture nor forestry lands are a General Plan designation, zoning classification or use in the City (City of Berkeley 2001). According to the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring program, the City of Berkeley is classified as urban and built-up land (DOC 2016). Additionally, there is no Williamson Act contract land within the City (DOC 2017).

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

1-6
The proposed HEU would not: lead to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use; conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland; result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or otherwise convert Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there would be no impacts on agriculture and forestry resources.

1.6.2 Mineral Resources
The City of Berkeley does not have significant mineral resources or active mining sites within its boundaries. The proposed HEU applies to an urban area which is not compatible with, identified for, or used for mineral extraction. In addition, mineral resources are not addressed in the City’s General Plan (City of Berkeley 2001).

Development under the proposed HEU would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state or result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan or other land use plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to mineral resources.

1.7 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The City of Berkeley is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project.

A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews and determines whether the proposed HEU complies with State law but is not a responsible agency involved with CEQA. There are no responsible agencies for this project.

A trustee agency refers to a State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. There are no trustee agencies for the proposed HEU or Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not directly cause development in areas where trustee agencies mentioned in CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 have jurisdiction. However, future development projects could be located lands under trustee agency jurisdiction, at which time subsequent environmental review would occur.

1.8 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process, as required under CEQA, is summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps are presented in sequential order.

1. Notice of Preparation (NOP). After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency (City of Berkeley) must send a NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days.

2. Draft EIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) discussion of irreversible changes.

Introduction

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-7

3. Notice of Completion (NOC). The lead agency must send a NOC to the State Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR. The lead agency must place the NOC in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and send a copy of the NOC to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public and respond in writing to all comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The minimum public review period for a Draft EIR is 30 days. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days unless the State Clearinghouse approves a shorter period (Public Resources Code 21091).

4. Final EIR. A F
inal EIR must include: a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) a list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments.

5. Certification of Final EIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Fina l EIR
was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

6. Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may: a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

7. Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency’s jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision.

8. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When the lead agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects.

9. Notice of Determination (NOD). The lead agency must file a NOD after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the NOD with the County Clerk. The NOD must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).

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

1-8
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process

Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Project Description
The proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU),
herein referred to as the “proposed HEU” or “proposed
project,” would amend the City of Berkeley’s General Plan by replacing the current Housing Element with the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element and amending the City’s General Plan as needed for consistency and HEU implementation.

The proposed HEU e stablishes policies and programs to
further the goal of meeting the existing and projected
housing needs of all household income levels of the
community. In addition, the sites inventory provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) through the year 2031, as
established by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG). Although no rezoning is needed to meet the RHNA, the City is considering focused rezoning as part of the implementation programs to achieve local objectives.

This section describes the prop
osed project, including the project location, major project characteristics, project objectives, and discretionary actions needed for approval.

2.1 Lead Agency Name, Address, and Contact
City of Berkeley
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, California 94704
(510) 981-7400
Contact: Grace Wu, Acting Principal Planner, [email protected]

2.2 Project Location and Setting
The City of Berkeley is located in northern Alameda County in the East Bay portion of the San Francisco Bay Area region and is surrounded by urbanized areas to the north and south and primarily open space in the hillsides to the east. The regional location is shown in Figure 2-1. The City is bordered by the City of Albany and the unincorporated community of Kensington to the north, by Contra Costa County and the City of Oakland to the east, the cities of Oakland and Emeryville to the south, and San Francisco Bay to the west. Berkeley encompasses approximately

17.7 square miles, of which approximately 7.2 square miles is underwater in the San Francisco Bay.

The city limits are shown on Figure 2-2.

The City is highly urbanized and developed with a mix of land uses, including single-family residential neighborhoods, mixed-use and multi-family residential areas, offices, retail, faith-based and cultural institutions, schools, hotels, parking, recreational uses, and public streets. Figure 2-3 shows a map of existing land uses in Berkeley.

The Berkeley General Plan
Element 1. Land Use
Element 2. Transportation
Element 3. Housing
Element 4. Disaster Preparedness and
Safety
Element 5. Open Space and Recreation
Element 6. Environmental Management
Element 7. Economic Development and
Employment
Element 8. Urban Design and
Preservation
Element 9. Citizen Participation