Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023

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

2-2
Figure 2-1 Regional Location

Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-3
Figure 2-2 City of Berkeley Location

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

2-4
Figure 2-3 Map of Land Uses in the City of Berkeley

Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-5
Commercial activity is primarily distributed between Downtown, West Berkeley, the neighborhood and avenue commercial districts of North Shattuck, Elmwood, Solano, Shattuck/Adeline, and Telegraph Avenue, and the commercial strips along San Pablo and University Avenues. Industrial areas are primarily located in West Berkeley along the railroad and San Pablo Avenue corridors.

Institutional uses are primarily located around the University of California, Berkeley. Residential development and accompanying commercial services and public facilities are located throughout the city.

Currently the City has a population of approximately 124,563 and 52,921 housing units (California Department of Finance 2022).

2.3 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.

2.4 Project Characteristics
The project analyzed in this EIR involves an update to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan and would include adoption of General Plan amendments related to housing that would apply Citywide for the 2023-2031 planning period.

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.

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

2-6
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. However, future development proposals would be reviewed to determine whether their impacts fall within the scope 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.

2.4.1 Housing Element Update
The Housing Element is one of the State-mandated elements of the General Plan. The current Housing Element was adopted in 2015 and is in effect through 2023. The Housing Element identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs, and establishes the policies and programs that comprise the City’s housing strategy to accommodate projected housing needs, including the provision of adequate housing for low-income households and for special-needs populations (e.g., unhoused people, seniors, single-parent households, large families, and persons with disabilities).

The 2023-2031 Housing Element would bring the element into compliance with State legislation passed since adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and with the current Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG’s) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). On December 16, 2021, the ABAG Executive Board adopted the 6
th Cycle Final RHNA, which includes a “fair share” allocation for meeting regional housing needs for each community in the ABAG region.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element includes the following components, as required by State law  Assessment of the City’s population, household, and housing stock characteristics, existing and future housing needs by household types, and special needs populations.  Analysis of resources and constraints related to housing production and preservation, including governmental regulations, infrastructure requirements and market conditions such as land, construction, and labor costs as well as restricted financing availability.  Identification of the City’s quantified objectives for the 6 th cycle RHNA and inventory of sites
determined to be suitable for housing.
 Creation or maintenance of opportunities for energy conservation in residential development.

State housing element law requires cities to identify opportunities for energy conservation in residential development.
 Review of the 2013-2021 Housing Element to identify progress and evaluate the effectiveness of previous policies and programs.
 A Housing Plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs to facilitate the 2023 Housing Element Update (6 th Cycle).

2.4.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
ABAG has allocated the nine-county region’s 441,176 housing unit growth needs among each city and county in its region through a process called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). As shown in Table 2-1, Berkeley’s RHNA for the 2023-2031 planning period (6th RHNA cycle) is 8,934 units, which is distributed among four income categories. The RHNA represents the minimum

Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-7
number of housing units that the City’s sites inventory must accommodate for in its Housing Element, through its General Plan and zoning.

Table 2-1 RHNA and Percentage of Income Distribution for Berkeley Income Level Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) Units Percent Very Low <50% 2,446 27.4%
Low 50-80% 1,408 15.8%
Moderate 80-120% 1,416 15.8%
Above Moderate >120% 3,664 41.0%
Total – 8,934 100%
Source: ABAG 2021a
For the prior RHNA cycle, the City was allocated a total of 2,959 units to be accommodated in its Housing Element inventory of adequate sites.

2.4.3 Meeting the RHNA
The City has identified an inventory of sites and a set of implementation programs to meet its RHNA and to further other local policy objectives.

EIR 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 result in fewer total units and a reduction of total physical sites for housing development. Figure 2-4 includes the location of the parcels used in the EIR Sites Inventory.

The sites inventory includes a total of 15,153 units, which also accounts for 800 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on recent development trends.

Likely Sites
Likely Sites include housing projects that received their land use entitlement since 2018 but did not receive their certificate of occupancy prior to June 2022. For these projects, the affordability breakdown reflects actual project plans, including density bonus units. HCD also allows jurisdictions to include ADUs in the “likely sites” category based on recent development trends and assumed levels of affordability based on ABAG’s Affordability of ADUs report (ABAG 2021b).

The Likely Sites include an estimated 4,685 units, which includes, based on information from previous years and trends, an estimated 800 ADUs to be developed during the 2023-2031 planning period.

Pipeline Sites
Pipeline Sites include projects that are under review or actively engaging with the City in anticipation of submitting an application for review. Affordability levels reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known.

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

2-8
The North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations are included under “pipeline sites” based on current planning and rezoning efforts. The sites inventory estimates 1,200 units to be developed at the two BART sites during the 6th cycle, with 35 percent of the units targeted to Very Low- and Low-Income affordability levels.

The Pipeline Sites include an estimated 2,415 units.

Opportunity Sites
Opportunity Sites are currently vacant and/or underutilized sites and are not associated with actual development proposals. Site selection is conducted based on an analysis of site-specific constraints, including General Plan land use and zoning, access to utilities, location, development potential, and whether the site is identified in a previous Housing Element. To count toward the RHNA, sites must be in a land use category that meets a minimum residential density standard, have a minimum lot size, be either vacant or not developed to the maximum capacity allowed by zoning, and provide the potential for more residences.

Berkeley’s zoning districts, with the exception of the C-AC district, do not have maximum density standards expressed in dwelling units per acre as density is typically controlled through other development standards. As a result, unit assumptions for opportunity sites were calculated using the average of the base density
1 from recent entitlement projects within the district (or districts with similar zoning standards if there were no recent projects within the district to analyze).

The Housing Element in and of itself does not develop housing – it is a plan. This housing plan must be supported by consistent zoning standards. The pace of development is difficult to predict, and it is unlikely that all of these units will be built, but the inventory demonstrates sufficient capacity to meet the 6
th cycle RHNA including the buffer. In addition, the sites inventory does not include all potential residential development sites within the City limits and the 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 sites identified in the HEU sites inventory analysis are generally located in areas near major transportation corridors and existing residential and commercial development. The sites identified in the HEU sites inventory do not make up all of the new housing capacity anticipated in the 6 th
cycle, as the HEU includes implementation programs, which are discussed below.

The Opportunity Sites include an estimated 8,053 units.

1 A project’s “base” density is the density of a project before the application of any density added to a project pursuant to t he State Density Bonus Law. Per HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook, May 2020, the analysis of “appropriate zoning” should not include residential buildout projections resulting from the implementation of a jurisdiction’s inclusionary program or potent ial increase in density due to a density bonus.

Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-9
Figure 2-4 EIR Sites Inventory Locations

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

2-10
Implementation Programs
The City has determined based on the sites inventory that rezoning is not needed to meet the RHNA. However, recent development activity suggests current zoning alone does not deliver the level of deed-restricted affordable housing and economic 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.

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, to promote 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.

The Terner Center’s SB 9 modeling indicates that the City of Berkeley could anticipate approximately 1,100 total new market-feasible units through SB 9 (Terner Center 2021). 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. Current locations of the R-1, R-1A, R- 2, R-2A and MU-R districts are shown on Figure 2-5. For the purposes of this analysis, the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts are referred to as the “middle housing rezoning districts.” 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 the portions of the C-T, R-S and R-SMU districts within the Southside Area for the 2023-2031 period. The location of the Southside Plan Area is shown on Figure 2-6.

Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-11
Figure 2-5 Middle Housing Rezoning Districts

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

2-12
Figure 2-6 Southside Area

Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-13

2.4.4 EIR Projected Buildout
Table 2-2 summarizes the projected buildout utilized for the analysis in this EIR. It 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.

Table 2-2 EIR Projected Buildout
Total New Units
EIR Sites Inventory
Likely Sites1 4,685
Pipe
line Sites2 2,415
Opportunity Sites 8,053
Implementation Programs
Middle Housing Rezon ing3 1,745
Southside Zoning Modification Project4 1,000
Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations5 1,200
Overall EIR Growth Assumption 19,098
Notes:
1 Likely Sites includes an estimated 800 ADUs
2 Pipeline Sites include 1,200 units at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations. 3 This EIR assumes 770 additional units distributed throughout the R-1 districts, and 975 units in the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R, to account for SB 9 and proposed HEU policies to facilitate increased development in lower density districts. 4 This EIR assumes an additional 1,000 units to accommodate increased height and lot coverage zoning standards in the C- T, R-S and R- SMU districts.
5 The EIR Sites Inventory assumes 1,200 units at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations as part of the pipeline sites. For the purposes of this EIR, we include a total of 2,400 units at both BART stations, as analyzed in the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations Zoning Standards Project EIR.

The EIR Projected Buildout does not include units included in the University of California, Berkeley Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). The LRDP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes the addition of approximately 11,073 student beds and 549 employee housing units within the City of Berkeley (University of California, Berkeley 2021). As stated in Section 3, Environmental Setting, development associated with the LRDP is analyzed in the cumulative impact analysis throughout the EIR.

State Density Bonus
Residential projects proposed in the 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle may be eligible to utilize provisions of the State Density Bonus (California Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918). The State Density Bonus encourages the development of affordable and senior housing, including up to a 50 percent increase in project densities for most projects, depending on the amount of affordable housing provided, and up to an 80 percent increase in density for certain projects which are 100 percent affordable. The State Density Bonus also includes a package of incentives intended to help

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

2-14
make the development of affordable and senior housing economically feasible. These include waivers and concessions, such as reduced setback, increased height or modified open space and other requirements.

Whether an individual project will utilize the State Density Bonus, or which aspects of State Density Bonus law an individual project would utilize, is difficult to predict. However, based on recent trends, multi-family residential projects in higher density residential and commercial zoning districts are most likely to utilize the State Density Bonus. As explained above, this EIR assesses a development potential greater than the projected housing need (RHNA) of 8,934 units, including units that could be built using State Density Bonus.

Change in Housing Units from Existing Conditions
According to the California Department of Finance, as of May 2022 there were an estimated 52,921 housing units in Berkeley. As shown in Table 2-2, the HEU analyzes the development of up to 19,098 net additional units by 2031, representing an increase of approximately 36 percent in the number of housing units in the city. If all units were to be permitted, there would be a total of 72,031 housing units in Berkeley by 2031. The pace of development is difficult to predict, and it is unlikely that all of these units will be built, but the inventory demonstrates more than sufficient capacity to meet the 6th cycle RHNA.

2.4.5 Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The project would include amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC). BMC Chapters that would likely be amended include:
 Chapter 23.108 Zoning Districts and Map, to reflect any amended or consolidated zoning districts;
 Chapter 23.202 Residential Districts, to reflect changes in allowable development capacity in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A zoning districts, and the R-S, R-SMU and R-3 zoning districts in the Southside Plan Area;
 Chapter 23.204 Commercial Districts, to reflect changes in allowable development capacity in the C-T district in the Southside Plan Area; and
 Chapter 23.206 Manufacturing Districts, to reflect changes in allowable development capacity in the MU-R district; and
 Chapter 23.304 General Development Standards, to reflect revised development capacity consistent with the changes in the zoning districts above.

2.4.6 Land Use Element Update
The Land Use Element is a guide for the City’s future development. It designates the distribution and general location of land uses, such as residential, retail, industrial, open space, recreation, and public uses. The Land Use Element also addresses the permitted density and intensity of the various land use designations as reflected on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map.

The Land Use Element would be amended to include new policies and modifications to land use classifications to maintain consistency with the policies and zoning amendments in the updated Housing Element.

Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-15

2.5 Required Approvals
With recommendations from the Planning Commission, the City of Berkeley City Council would need to take the following discretionary actions in conjunction with the HEU:
 Certification of the EIR;
 Adoption of a resolution amending the General Plan to update the Housing Element;  Adoption of an ordinance (two readings) amending the City’s zoning ordinance and the City’s zoning map, and
 Adoption of a resolution making corresponding changes to the Land Use Element and General Plan Land Use Map required to preserve internal consistency and to reflect the location and density of land uses permitted by the Housing Element and City’s zoning ordinance.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element will be submitted to HCD for review and comment prior to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, followed by action and adoption by the City Council.

2.6 California Native American Tribal Consultation
The Confederated Villages of Lisjan requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. As a result of the City’s consultation with Confederated Villages of Lisjan, a mitigation measure related to Tribal Cultural Resources has been included in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

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

2-16

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Setting
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project.

More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 City of Berkeley Setting
The City of Berkeley is located in northern Alameda County in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area. It is regionally accessible via Interstate 580/80, State Route 123 (SR 123), State Route 13 (SR 13) and State Route 24 (SR 24). Berkeley itself is approximately 17.2 square miles, approximately 7.2 square miles of which is underwater in the San Francisco Bay. Most of Berkeley sits on a rolling sedimentary plain that increases slightly in elevation from sea level to the bottom of Berkeley Hills.

The elevation increases more sharply along the base of the Berkeley Hills up to the ridgeline/city limit, east of the Hayward Fault. The highest peak along the ridge line above Berkeley is Grizzly Peak, sitting at an elevation of 1,754 feet.

Berkeley 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, religious and cultural institutions, schools, hotels, parking, recreational uses, and public streets. Commercial activity is primarily distributed between Downtown, West Berkeley, the neighborhoods and commercial districts of North Shattuck, Elmwood, Solano, Shattuck/Adeline, and Telegraph Avenue, and the commercial strips along San Pablo and University Avenues. Industrial areas are primarily located in West Berkeley along the railroad and San Palo Avenue corridors. Institutional uses include the University of California and other educational institutions in its vicinity, as well as numerous arts and theater venues and several medical facilities. Residential development and accompanying commercial services and public facilities including parks, schools and libraries are located throughout Berkeley.

Currently Berkeley has an estimated population of 124,563 and 52,921 housing units (California Department of Finance 2022). Berkeley is surrounded by urbanized areas to the north and south, and primarily open space in the hillsides to the east, with the San Francisco Bay to the west.

The Mediterranean climate of the region and coastal influence produce moderate temperatures year-round, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months. Air quality in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is in nonattainment for ozone, particulate matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM
10), and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5
micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) (BAAQMD 2017).

3.2 EIR Projected Buildout Setting
As shown in Table 2-3 in Section 2, Project Description, the projected buildout utilized for the analysis in this EIR consists of an EIR Sites Inventory, the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, as well as projections for implementation programs related to the middle housing rezoning (in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts) and the Southside Zoning Modification Project. Overall, this EIR assumes 19,098 units associated with the proposed HEU. Parcels included in the EIR Sites Inventory are shown on Figure 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description. These sites are located throughout

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

3-2
Berkeley, but mostly along existing commercial corridors such as San Pablo Avenue, University Avenue, Sixth Street, Seventh Street, Telegraph Avenue, and Shattuck Avenue as well as on the North Berkeley and Ashby BART station sites. Sites are also dispersed throughout the hillside area.

The EIR Sites Inventory include undeveloped, underdeveloped, and developed parcels. This EIR also analyzes impacts associated with implementation programs that would apply in the middle housing rezoning districts and the Southside area. The locations of the middle housing rezoning districts are shown on Figure 2-5 in Section 2 and the location of the Southside area is shown on Figure 2-6 in Section 2.

3.3 Cumulative Development
In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) to consider potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are substantial or will compound other environmental impacts.

Cumulative impacts are the combined changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, noise impacts of two nearby projects may be less than significant when analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis provides a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a summary of projections contained in an adopted planning document such as a general plan.

Some analyses including air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and population and housing, rely on much larger geographic areas such as the Bay Area region. For issues that may have regional cumulative implications, the cumulative impact analysis for this EIR is based on Plan Bay Area 2040, the Bay Area’s most recent Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Based on the forecasts in Plan Bay Area 2040, in 2040 Berkeley is estimated to have a population of 140,900, 55,400 housing units, and 121,700 jobs. Currently, Berkeley has an estimated population of 124,563, 52,921 housing units, and 116,435 jobs (see Tables 4.12-1 and 4.12-2 in Section 4.12, Population and Housing). Development under the proposed rezoning in conjunction with development forecasted in Plan Bay Area 2040 is accounted for in the cumulative impacts analysis.

For analyses that may have more localized or neighborhood implications (biological resources, cultural resources, noise, public services, utilities, wildfire), the cumulative impact analysis includes development proposed under the University of California, Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and Housing Projects #1 and #2 as described in the Draft EIR dated March 8, 2021 (University of California, Berkeley 2021). The LRDP Update planning assumption for the campus population is 48,200 students and 19,000 faculty and staff in the 2036-37 academic year compared to 39,300 students and 15,400 faculty and staff in the 2018-19 academic year. The LRDP update also assumes 9,325,88 square feet of development on non-campus University properties throughout Berkeley (including Housing Projects #1 and #2) compared to 4,640,769 square feet of development in 2018- 2019.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the proposed HEU for the specific issue areas that were identified through the scoping process as having the potential for significant effects.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 provides the following guidance:
“Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.

An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A s
ocial or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, which is followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the significance thresholds, which are those criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each potential impact of the proposed HEU, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows one of the following determinations:
 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 they are 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.

Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other planned and pending developments in the area listed in Section 3, Environmental Setting. The Executive Summary of this EIR summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project.

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

4-2

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1

4.1 Aesthetics
This section evaluates the potential impacts related to aesthetics, including scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character and quality, and light and glare associated with the implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update.

4.1.1 Setting
Scenic Vistas
The City of Berkeley General Plan lists significant views in the city as including views toward the Bay, the hills, and significant landmarks such as the Campanile on the University of California Berkeley campus, the Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island. Scenic vistas within Berkeley are generally limited to the Berkeley Hills where some locations provide panoramic views southward towards downtown Oakland and westward toward the San Francisco Bay. Views of Marin County, San Francisco, and the Golden Gate Bridge are visible on the horizon to the west. There are a number of scenic viewpoints from places in the hills, especially along Grizzly Peak Boulevard and at public viewpoints on Grizzly Peak Boulevard. Other roadways in the hills may also provide scenic views, though views are generally intermittent and fleeting, and some east-west oriented streets within the flat area of Berkeley provide narrow views of the San Francisco Bay. Some east-west oriented streets within the flat area of Berkeley also provide scenic views towards the Berkeley Hills of the hillsides which are dominated by mature trees with glimpses of residential development through the trees.

Visual Character
Berkeley is a dense, urbanized area with the built environment set against the backdrop of the East Bay hills. Most of Berkeley sits on a flat plain (commonly known as the “flats”) that increases slightly in elevation from sea level near the Bay to the bottom of the Berkeley Hills. The elevation increases more sharply along the base of the Berkeley Hills. Development in the city began in the late nineteenth century. The visual character of Berkeley is characterized by a mix of land use types, including residential, commercial, institutional, office, warehouse/industrial, mixed-use, and parks and recreational spaces with mature trees throughout the city and historic buildings present in some locations. Berkeley includes a mix of building types and architectural styles.

Berkeley has a number of distinct neighborhoods. The most densely populated areas are the neighborhoods surrounding the University of California, Berkeley campus. These include the Downtown area west of campus, which is the City’s commercial core, and the Southside area south of campus, which includes student housing and the commercial corridor along Telegraph Avenue.

Other neighborhoods include the Claremont District in the southeastern corner of Berkeley, the Elmwood District along College Avenue, South Berkeley, West Berkeley, North Berkeley, and the Berkeley Hills.

Light and Glare
Major sources of light in Berkeley include street lighting along major streets and highways and nighttime lighting of residences, commercial buildings, and industrial buildings. Typically, light from residences are screened by trees or other structures. More significant sources of light include

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

4.1-2
locations where nighttime events occur and large amounts of lighting is needed such as at sports fields, though this lighting is typically temporary and only when events occur.

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Department of Transportation manages the State Scenic Highway Program. The program was created in 1963 with the goal of protecting the aesthetic significance of scenic highways throughout the state. According to the State Streets and Highways Code (Sections 260 through 263), a highway may be designated as scenic based on its scenic quality, how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, and the extent to which development intrudes on the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. The California Scenic Highway Program’s Scenic Highway System List identifies scenic highways that are either eligible for designation or have already been designated as such within Alameda County, but none of these occur within Berkeley (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2022). Eligible and officially designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of Berkeley include:
 State Route (SR) 13 from SR 24 to I-580: This route is eligible for listing and is located approximately 0.5 miles south of the closest point to the city limits.  I-80 from I-280 near First Street in San Francisco to SR 61 in Oakland. This route is eligible for listing and is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the closest point to the city limits.  I-580 from San Leandro city limits to I-980 in Oakland. This route is officially designated and is located approximately 1.6 miles south of the closest point to the city limits.  SR 24 from the eastern portal of the Caldecott Tunnel to I-680 near Walnut Creek. This route is officially designated and is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the closest point to the city limits.

Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill 743 (California Public Resources Code Section 21099) passed in 2013, made changes to the CEQA for projects located in transit-oriented development areas. Among these changes are that a project’s aesthetics impacts are no longer considered significant impacts on the environment if the project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project and if the project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area (TPA). Pursuant to Section 21099 of the California Public Resources Code, a “transit priority area” is defined in as an area within 0.5 mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. A "major transit stop" is defined in Section 21064.3 of the California Public Resources Code as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

Berkeley includes areas that are within a TPA including the downtown area, Southside area, and North Berkeley, and areas along major commercial corridors such as San Pablo Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, and Telegraph Avenue. Areas in Berkeley within a TPA are shown on Figure 4.1-1.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3
Figure 4.1-1 Transit Priority Areas in Berkeley

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

4.1-4
b. Local Regulations
City of Berkeley General Plan
The overall goal of the City’s Urban Design and Preservation Element is to “Protect and enhance Berkeley’s special built environment and cultural heritage by carefully conserving the numerous existing good buildings, areas, and other features and ensuring that new elements are so located and designed as to respect and strengthen the whole.” Goals and policies related to scenic views and visual character include:

Policy UD-5: Architectural Features. Encourage, and where appropriate require, retention of ornaments and other architecturally interesting features in the course of seismic retrofit and other rehabilitation work.

Policy UD-16: Context. The design and scale of new or remodeled buildings should respect the built environment in the area, particularly where the character of the built environment is largely defined by an aggregation of historically and architecturally significant buildings.

Policy UD-17: Design Elements. In relating a new design to the surrounding area, the factors to consider should include height, massing, materials, color, and detailing or ornament.

Policy UD-18: Contrast and Cohesiveness. The overall urban experience should contain variety and stimulating contrasts achieved largely through contrast between different areas each of which is visually cohesive.

Policy UD-19: Visually Heterogeneous Areas. In areas that are now visually heterogeneous, a project should be responsive to the best design elements of the area or neighborhood.

Policy UD-20: Alterations. Alterations to a worthwhile building should be compatible with the building’s original architectural character
Policy UD-22: Regulating New Construction and Alterations. Regulate new construction and alterations to ensure that they are individually well-designed and that they are so designed and located as to duly respect and where possible enhance the existing built environment.

Policy UD-23: Design Review. Ensure that the design review process ensures excellence in design and that new construction and alterations to existing buildings are compatible with the best elements of the character of the area.

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

Policy UD-25: Facades and Exterior Features. Buildings should have significant exterior features and facades that stimulate the eye and invite interested perusal.

Policy UD-26: Pedestrian-Friendly Design. Architecture and site design should give special emphasis to enjoyment by, and convenience and safety for, pedestrians.

Policy UD-27: Relation to Sidewalk. Projects generally should be designed to orient the main entrance toward the public sidewalk, not a parking lot, and avoid confronting the sidewalk with a large windowless wall or tall solid fence.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5
Policy UD-28: Commercial Frontage. Commercial buildings on streets with public transit generally should have no appreciable setback from that street’s sidewalk, except in the case of occasional plazas or sitting areas that enhance the area’s pedestrian environment.

Policy UD-29: Signs. Signs should contribute aesthetically to, rather than detract from, the site they are on and the general streetscape.

Policy UD-31: Views. Construction should avoid blocking significant views, especially ones toward the Bay, the hills, and significant landmarks such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island. Whenever possible, new buildings should enhance a vista or punctuate or clarify the urban pattern.

The Land Use Element of the General Plan also contains the following policies related to aesthetics.

Policy LU-3: Infill Development. Encourage infill development that is architecturally and environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of sustainable planning and construction, and is compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale.

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

City of Berkeley Municipal Code
Chapter 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) includes the City’s Zoning Ordinance and regulates height, setbacks, and lot coverage for each of the City’s zoning district. BMC Chapter 23 also contains several regulations pertaining to lighting and glare including:
 Section 23.304.100, Site Features in Residential Districts, requires that all exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from lot lines to prevent excessive glare beyond the property on which the light is located. This section also states that lights on motion sensors may not be triggered by movement or activity located off the property on which the light is located.
 Section 23.322.110, Parking Lots in Residential Districts, states that Lighting fixtures must be oriented to direct the light away from adjacent lots.
 Section 23.304.130, Non-Residential Districts Abutting Residential Districts, requires that exterior lighting be shielded in a manner which avoids direct glare onto abutting lots in a Residential District.

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact if it would do any of the following:

Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;

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

4.1-6
In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or, Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

As described in the Section 4.1.2, Regulatory Setting, under Senate Bill 743 aesthetic impacts associated with residential projects in a TPA cannot be considered significant impacts on the environment. The proposed HEU provides a vision and planning framework to encourage the development of housing in accordance with State goals and to meet the RHNA. The proposed project identifies inventory sites where future housing development could occur and also assumes additional development at the North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations, in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts (middle housing rezoning districts), and in the Southside. Many of the inventory sites, the middle housing rezoning district sites, the BART station sites, and the Southside are within TPA as shown on Figure 4.1-1. These sites are either within 0.5 miles of a BART station or are served by multiple bus lines.

Because implementation of the proposed rezoning would facilitate residential development on infill sites within a TPA, aesthetics impacts of development of those locations within a TPA may not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, this analysis focuses on portions of Berkeley which are not within a TPA. This includes portions of North Berkeley and neighborhoods in the Berkeley Hills.

Pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21099.d, “aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.” This analysis is included in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this EIR. In addition, Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, includes a discussion of the proposed rezoning’s consistency with City plans and goals, including those applicable to design and aesthetics. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 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.

As stated above under Methodology and Significance Thresholds and shown on Figure 4.1-1, because most of the sites of future development are within a TPA and aesthetic impacts in those areas cannot be considered significant impacts, this analysis focuses on the impacts associated with development in areas within the city that are not in a TPA. The proposed HEU would involve increases in allowed height for building in the Southside; however, the entirely of the Southside area is within a TPA. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the height increase in the Southside would be less than significant.

In addition, for the purposes of this analysis, a scenic vista is a view from a public place (roadway, designated scenic viewing spot, etc.) that is expansive and considered important by a jurisdiction or a community. It can be obtained from an elevated position (such as from the top of a hillside) or it can be seen from a roadway with a longer-range view of the landscape. An adverse effect would

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7
occur if a proposed project would alter, block, or otherwise damage a scenic vista upon implementation.

Scenic vistas in Berkeley are available from the Berkeley Hills towards the flat part of the city and towards the San Francisco Bay. Scenic views are also available from the western part of the city towards the hills. City of Berkeley General Plan Policy US-31 lists significant views in the city as including views toward the Bay, the hills, and significant landmarks such as the Campanile on the University of California Berkeley campus, the Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island.

Berkeley includes views from public streets in the Berkeley Hills towards the San Francisco Bay across the urbanized landscape of Berkeley to the west. Most of the development that would be facilitated by the proposed HEU would occur in concentrations along already developed commercial corridors such as San Pablo Avenue, University Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, and Telegraph Avenue.

These areas area urbanized with development of varying heights. Additional development along these coordinators would not substantially alter or block views of the landscape and towards the Bay from public viewpoints in the hills, as building heights would be generally similar to existing and ongoing development on these corridors and the viewshed from the hills would remain available over such buildings. The proposed HEU would also involve development at scattered sites throughout the hills and in the R-1 district. However, development of these individual sites would also not substantially block public views from roadways in these areas as new buildings would be of a generally similar height as existing development and many of the views that would be affected are already fully or intermittently impeded by mature trees and buildings.

Views of the Bay to the west and of the hillsides to the east are also available from limited locations within the flat area of the city, especially along east-west streets. As stated previously, most of development under the HEU would be concentrated along commercial corridors. For the north- south oriented roadways, such as San Pablo Road, Shattuck Avenue, and Telegraph Avenue, views of the hills to the east and Bay to the west are already largely blocked by existing development, overhead transmission lines, and mature trees on private properties and beside roadways. For the east-west oriented roadways, such as University Avenue, the potential increase of development on either side of the roadway would not substantially block views that are currently available via the street corridors. Overall, in the limited areas where views are available from public roadways, these views are already blocked by existing urban development and an increase in that development would not directly block those views.

Overall, development associated with the proposed HEU would not substantially alter or block scenic vistas. This impact would be less than significant.

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

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

4.1-8
Threshold 2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 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.

The closest designated State Scenic Highway to the city is I-580 in Oakland approximately 1.6 miles from the city limits. The closest eligible State Scenic Highway is SR 13 located approximately 0.5 miles from the city limits. No parts of the city are visible from these locations. Future development under the proposed HEU would not damage scenic resources in or within clear view of this State- designated Scenic Highway. This impact would be less than significant.

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

Threshold 3: Woul d the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
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.

Berkeley can be categorized as an urban area as it is largely built out with a mix of residential neighborhoods, commercial areas and corridors, and industrial areas, and has a population of more than 100,000 residents (CEQA Statute Section 21071). The proposed HEU would provide a framework for introducing new housing at all levels of affordability that is within access to transit, jobs, services, and open spaces. The proposed project would meet the RHNA without rezoning for the inventory sites shown in Figure 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description. However, the proposed HEU would include zoning ordinance and zoning map amendments to increase the density of the middle housing rezoning districts to facilitate increased development in lower density residential districts.

The project would also include zoning map and height amendments in the Southside Plan Area to change the following zoning parameters: building heights, building footprints (including setbacks and lot coverage), parking, ground-floor residential use, and adjustments to the existing zoning district boundaries. Overall, the proposed HEU would involve zoning changes, but future development under the program would not conflict with applicable zoning provisions regulating scenic quality such as height, lot coverage and setback requirements, as well as applicable design standards in effect at that time.

The proposed project would facilitate infill development on underutilized sites in order to increase densi
ty to accommodate a higher number of residents. Develo
pment facilitated by the project
would be infill development and may enhance the visual quality of the affected sites in some cases by filling in vacant and underdeveloped visual areas with new development. Further, future development would be subject to design review as part of the project approval process. Individual future projects would be subject to the City’s existing general development standards (BMC Chapter

23.304) to ensure that buildings are compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9
and scale. Additionally, future development with two or more units would be required to comply with the City’s proposed set of objective development standards which are anticipated to be adopted in Spring 2023. The objective standards will be tailored to streamline approval of housing projects under the HEU by providing a clear and consistent set of review rules and processes.

Examples of standards that the City will define include building height, set back distances, and units allowed per acre. This would ensure that future development is compatible with the character and scale of Berkeley according to the City’s standards (City of Berkeley 2022). There are no other applicable zoning regulations or other City regulations governing scenic quality.

Although the proposed HEU would increase building he
ights in the Southside, the Southside is
within a TPA and therefore, as described above, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant.

Over
all, for areas of the city not within a TPA, the proposed HEU would not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality. The impact would be less than significant.

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

Threshold: Woul d the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? 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.

Berkeley is an urbanized city with commensurate level of light and glare. Development facilitated by the project would, in large part, occur as infill on already developed parcels or on vacant or underutilized sites within existing neighborhoods. New lighting could occur on buildings for safety and in pedestrian walkways, and light could be emitted from interior sources through windows on upper stories of tall buildings. The main source of glare would likely be from the sun shining on reflective or light-colored building materials and glazing.

Development facilitated by the proposed HEU would occur as redevelopment of existing built sites or inf
ill development of unused parcels between existing built sites. When f acilities such as parking
lots are replaced with buildings, these replacements may reduce nighttime sources of light, because parking lots are often more brightly lit during the nighttime than most buildings. Development of underutilized or vacant parcels may result in new light sources, but they would likely be congruous with nearby light sources (e.g., lighting from residential windows). Furthermore, as the development facilitated by the project would be residential units, light from windows would be mostly filtered or obscured by window coverings. Light spillover from exterior residential lighting is typically blocked by adjacent structures or trees.

Further, Berkeley’s Municipal Code has requirements to reduce the potential for new or substantial sources of light pollution in Berkeley. BMC Sections 23.304.100 and 23.304.130 require that exterior lighting be shielded to avoid light spillover onto adjacent residential properties.

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

4.1-10
Overall, new residential development would be in existing residential neighborhoods or along commercial corridors where sources of light and glare already exist. Development under the proposed HEU would not create new sources of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area and the impact therefore is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. c. Cumulative Impacts
Development in Berkeley facilitated by the proposed HEU in conjunction with buildout under the University of California, Berkeley’s LRDP could result in impacts to visual resources and aesthetic quality, although visual quality could improve with redevelopment of aging buildings and vacant sites. Implementation of the project would encourage increased housing development citywide, mainly in areas already developed with other uses. The Southside Plan area, the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, and most sites in the EIR Sites Inventory, would be within TPAs and therefore would not result in significant aesthetics impacts. Future projects in Berkeley that are not within TPAs may undergo analysis for impacts to aesthetics and visual resources. Potential impacts could be addressed by design guidelines, regulations, policies, and project-specific measures, thereby limiting impacts on existing visual resources and enhancing the visual quality of areas where development occurs. Consequently, development facilitated by the proposed HEU would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts in conflict with requirements for preserving scenic vistas, scenic resources in State- or locally designated highways or drives, visual quality, and for limiting the effects of light and glare. Therefore, project implementation would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impact on aesthetics.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1

4.2 Air Quality
This section analyzes the effects of the proposed HEU on air quality emissions and the associated impacts. This section analyzes both temporary air quality impacts relating to construction activity and possible long-term air quality impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project. The analysis herein is based partially on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data provided by Kittelson & Associates (2022).

4.2.1 Setting
a. Existing Air Quality Setting
Local Climate and Meteorology
Berkeley is located in the “Northern Alameda and Western Contra Costa Counties” climatological subregion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This subregion is bordered on the east by the Oakland-Berkeley Hills and on the west by the San Francisco Bay (Bay). Marine air traveling through the Golden Gate is a dominant weather factor, and the Oakland-Berkeley Hills cause the westerly flow of air to split off the north and south of Oakland, which causes diminishing wind speeds. Air temperatures are moderated by the subregion's proximity to marine air. During the summer months, average maximum temperatures are in the mid-70 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and during the winter months, average maximum temperatures are in the mid- to high 50°F (BAAQMD 2017a).

Air quality in the SFBAAB is affected by the emission sources located in the region and by natural factors. Air pollutant emissions in the SFBAAB are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources.

Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.

Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. Area sources are distributed widely and include those such as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products.

Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources may be operated legally on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles.

Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed and direction, air temperature gradients, and local and regional topography influence air quality. Complex topographical features, the location of the Pacific high-pressure system, and varying circulation patterns associated with temperature gradients affect the speed and direction of local winds, which play a major role in the dispersion of pollutants.

Strong winds can carry pollutants far from their source, but a lack of wind will allow pollutants to concentrate in an area. Air dispersion also affects pollutant concentrations. As altitude increases, air temperature normally decreases. However, inversions can occur when colder air becomes trapped below warmer air, restricting the air masses’ ability to mix. Pollutants also become trapped, which promotes the production of secondary pollutants. Subsidence inversions, which can occur during the summer in the SFBAAB, result from high-pressure cells that cause the local air mass to sink, compress, and become warmer than the air closer to the earth. Pollutants accumulate as this stagnating air mass remains in place for one or more days (BAAQMD 2017a).

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

4.2-2
The air pollution potential in Northern Alameda and Western Contra Costa Counties climatological subregion is lowest in areas closest to the Bay due to good ventilation and lower influxes of pollutants from upwind sources. Air pollution potential in Berkeley is marginally higher than that of communities directly east of the Golden Gate because of the lower frequency of strong winds. This subregion contains a variety of industrial air pollution sources, some of which are close to residential areas, as well as congested major freeways, which are a major source of motor vehicle emissions (BAAQMD 2017a).

Air Quality Pollutants of Primary Concern
The federal and State clean air acts mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants.

Under these laws, USEPA and CARB have established ambient air quality standards for certain criteria pollutants. Ambient air pollutant concentrations are affected by the rates and distributions of corresponding air pollutant emissions, and by the climate and topographic influences discussed above. Proximity to major sources is the primary determinant of concentrations of non-reactive pollutants, such as CO and suspended particulate matter. Ambient CO levels usually follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. A discussion of each primary criterion pollutant is provided below.

Ozone
Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction (i.e., triggered by sunlight) between nitrogen oxides (NO
X) and reactive organic gases (ROG).
1 NOX is formed during the combustion of fuels, while ROG is formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it mostly occurs in substantial concentrations between the months of April and October.

Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, people with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors.

Carbon Monoxide
CO is an odorless, colorless gas and causes health problems such as fatigue, headache, confusion, and dizziness. The incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels by on-road vehicles and at power plants is a major cause of CO, which is also produced during the winter from wood stoves and fireplaces. CO tends to dissipate rapidly into the atmosphere; consequently, violations of the State CO standards are associated generally with major roadway intersections during peak-hour traffic conditions.

Localized CO “hotspots” can occur at intersections with heavy peak-hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high that the local CO concentration exceeds the NAAQS of 35.0 ppm or the CAAQS of 20.0 ppm.

1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding CO, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions (CARB 2009). For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions and the term ROG is used in this report.[1] CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding CO, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that parti cipate in atmospheric photochemical reactions (CARB 2009). For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions and the term ROG is used in this report.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-3
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. Nitric oxide is the principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion, but nitric oxide reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis may occur in young children at concentrations below 0.3 ppm. Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light and causes a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of PM10 and acid rain.

Suspended Particulate Matter
PM10 is particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter. Suspended particulates are mostly dust particles, nitrates, and sulfates. Both PM
10 and PM2.5 are by-products of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads and are directly emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Suspended particulates are also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions.

The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects associated with the small particulates (those between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter) and fine particulates (those

2.5 microns and below)
can be very different.

The small particulates generally come from windblown dust and dust kicked up by mobile sources.

The fine particulates are generally associated with combustion processes, and form in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. Fine particulate matter is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate matter inhaled into the lungs remains there. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance.

Lead
Lead is a metal found in the environment and in manufacturing products. Historically, the major sources of lead emissions have been mobile and industrial sources. In the early 1970s, the USEPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The USEPA completed the ban prohibiting the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of the USEPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, atmospheric lead concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. The most dramatic reductions in lead emissions occurred prior to 1990 due to the removal of lead from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Because of phasing out leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions. The highest level of lead in the air is found generally near lead smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.

Toxic Air Contaminants
The California Health and Safety Code defines a toxic air contaminant (TAC) as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” Most of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines. According to CARB, diesel engine emissions are believed to be

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

4.2-4
responsible for about 70 percent of California’s estimated known cancer risk attributable to TACs and they make up about 8 percent of outdoor PM2.5 (CARB 2021a).

Air Quality Standards
The federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the State equivalent in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).

The BAAQMD provides local management of air quality in the City. CARB has established air quality standards and is responsible for the control of mobile emission sources, while the BAAQMD is responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources.

The USEPA has set primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO
2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns (PM10), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead. Primary standards are those levels of air quality deemed necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health. In addition, California has established health-based ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these and other pollutants, some of which are more stringent than the federal standards. Table 4.2-1 lists the current federal and State standards for regulated pollutants.

As a local air quality management agency, the BAAQMD must monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet them. Depending on whether standards are met or exceeded, a local air basin is classified as in “attainment” or “non-attainment.” The SFBAAB is designated non-attainment for the federal
standards for ozone and PM2.5 and in non-attainment for the State standard for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10.

Table 4.2-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration
Attainment
Status Concentration
Attainment
Status
Ozone 8 Hour 0.070 pp m N 0.070 ppm N
1 Hour 0.09 ppm N - -
Carbon Monoxide 8 Hour 9.0 ppm A 9 ppm A
1 Hour 20 ppm A 35 ppm A
Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Hour 0.18 ppm A 0.100 ppm U
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm - 0.053 ppm A
Sulfur Dioxide 24 Hour 0.04 ppm A 0.14 ppm A
1 Hour 0.25 ppm A 0.075 ppm A
Annual Arithmetic Mean - - 0.030 ppm A
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 N - -
24 Hour 50 µg/m3 N 150 µg/m3 U
Particulate Matter -
Fine (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 N 12 µg/m3 U/A
24 Hour - - 35 µg/m3 N
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 A - -

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5
Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration
Attainment
Status Concentration
Attainment
Status
Lead Calendar Quarter - - 1.5 µg/m3 A
Rolling 3 Month Average - - 0.15 µg/m3 -
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 - - A
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm U - -
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene)
24 Hour 0.010 ppm No
information
available
- -
Visibility Reducing
particles
8 Hour (10:00 to 18:00 PST) - U - -
A=Attainment N=Nonattainment U=Unclassified; mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter ppm=parts per million µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter
Source: BAAQMD 2017a, http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status Current Air Quality
CARB and the U.S. EPA established ambient air quality standards for major pollutants, including ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, Pb, and PM10 and PM2.5. Standards have been set at levels intended to be protective of public health. California standards are more restrictive than federal standards for each of these pollutants except for lead and the eight-hour average for CO.

The closest air quality monitoring station to the City is the Berkeley-Aquatic Park station at 1 Bolivar Drive. The Berkeley-Aquatic Park station monitors ozone, CO, NO 2, and PM2.5. The San Pablo-Rumrill
Boulevard station was used for PM10 measurements. Table 4.2-2 indicates the number of days that each of the air quality standards have been exceeded at the stations during the monitoring period from 2018 through 2020. PM

2.5 exceeded federal thresholds 13 times in 2018 and 7 times in 2020.

PM10 exceeded state thresholds twice in 2018 and once in 2020, and also exceeded federal thresholds once in 2018. No other thresholds were exceeded in the years 2018 through 2020.

Table 4.2-2 Ambient Air Quality at Nearest Monitoring Stations Pollutant 2018 2019 2020
Berkeley-Aquatic Park Station
8-Hour Ozone (ppm), maximum 0.049 0.042 0.043
Num
ber of days of state exceedances (>0.070
ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.070 ppm) 0 0 0 1-hour Ozone (ppm), maximum 0.059 0.050 0.058
Number of days of state exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.112 ppm) 0 0 0 Nitrogen dioxide (ppb), 1-hour maximum 72.6 49.8 46.9
Number of days of state exceedances (>180 ppb) 0 0 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>100 ppb) 0 0 0
Particulate matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3, 24-hour maximum 165.5 28.8 158.2 Number of days above federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 13 0 7

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

4.2-6
Pollutant 2018 2019 2020
San Pablo- Rumrill Boulevard Station
Particulate matter <10 microns, µg/m3, 24-hour maximum 201 34.7 112.7 Num
ber of days of state exceedances (>50 µg/m3) 2 0 1
Number of days of federal exceedances (>150 µg/m3) 1 0 0 ppm = parts per million
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2021b
Sensitive Receptors
Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient to protect public health and welfare, with a margin of safety. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to the effects of air pollutants and subsequent respiratory distress, such as children under 14, the elderly over 65, persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The following locations contain sensitive receptors within Berkeley:
 Residences throughout the city
 Childcare centers, preschools, and K-12 schools
 Hospitals such as the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center and Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation  Senior centers such as the North Berkeley Senior Center and the Judge Henry Ramsey Jr. South Berkeley Senior Center (City of Berkeley 2022)

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
The USEPA is charged with implementing national air quality programs. USEPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), passed in 1963 by the U.S.

Congress and amended several times. The 1970 federal CAA amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including non-attainment requirements for areas not meeting NAAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 federal CAA amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate air quality in the United States.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The federal CAA requires USEPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS for several criteria air pollutants. The air pollutants for which standards have been established are considered the most prevalent air pollutants known to be hazardous to human health. NAAQS have been established for ozone, CO, NO
2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. Table 4.2-1 under Air Quality Standards lists the current federal standards for regulated pollutants.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7
b. State Regulations
California Clean Air Act
The California CAA, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the State to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. CARB is the State air pollution control agency and is a part of CalEPA. CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California, and for implementing the requirements of the California CAA. CARB overseas local district compliance with federal and California laws, approves local air quality plans, submits the State implementation plans to the USEPA, monitors air quality, determines and updates area designations and maps, and sets emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
The California CAA requires CARB to establish ambient air quality standards for California, known as CAAQS. Similar to the NAAQS, CAAQS have been established for criteria pollutants and standards are established for vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility-reducing particulates. In general, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS on criteria pollutants. Table 4.2-1 under Air Quality Standards lists the current State standards for regulated pollutants. The California CAA requires all local air districts to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The California CAA specifies that local air districts focus attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

CARB released a technical advisory on reducing air pollution near high-volume roadways to clarify the 500-foot recommendation from 2005 due to the increased focus on and benefits from infill development, which can often occur within 500 feet of a major roadway (CARB 2017). As described in the technical advisory, California has implemented various measures to improve air quality and reduce exposure to traffic emissions. These include the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, which aims to reduce particulate matter emissions from diesel vehicles. The continued electrification of California’s vehicle fleet would also reduce PM

2.5 levels, and ongoing efforts to reduce emissions
from cars and trucks and to move vehicles towards “zero emission” alternatives will continue to drive down traffic pollution (CARB 2017).

As shown in Table 4.2-2, the nearest monitoring stations to the housing inventory sites have shown the area to have relatively clean air. PM

2.5 exceeded federal thresholds 13 times in 2018 and 7 times in 2020, while PM10 exceeded state thresholds twice in 2018 and once in 2020, and also exceeded federal thresholds once in 2018.
c. Regional and Local Regulations
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring national and State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other

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

4.2-8
activities. The BAAQMD has jurisdiction over much of the nine-county Bay Area, including the including the City of Berkeley.

The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan as an update to the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean
Air Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate, which would apply to SFBAAB. To fulfill State ozone planning requirements, the 2017 control strategy includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors—ROG and NOX—and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins, such as stationary-source control measures to be implemented through the BAAQMD regulations; mobile-source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), local governments, transit agencies, and others. In addition, the 2017 Clean Air Plan builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the state 1-hour ozone standard (BAAQMD 2017b).

City of Berkeley General Plan
The City of Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management and Transportation elements contain the following policies specific to air quality (City of Berkeley 2003):

Policy EM-18 Regional Air Quality Action. Continue working with the BAAQMD and other regional agencies to:

Improve air quality through pollution prevention methods.

Ensure enforcement of air emission standards.

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

Promote regional pollution prevention plans for business and industry.

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

Locate parking appropriately and provide signage to reduce unnecessary “circling” and searching for parking.

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

Policy T-29 Infrastructure Improvements. Facilitate mobility and the flow of traffic on major and collector streets, reduce the air quality impacts of congestion, improve pedestrian and bicycle access, and speed public transportation throughout the city by making improvements to the existing physical infrastructure.

Berkeley Municipal Code
In 2019, the Berkeley City Council added Chapter 12.80 to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) via Ordinance No. 7,672-N.S., which prohibits the installation of natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings unless the applicant can establish that it is not physically feasible to construct the building without natural gas infrastructure or if its use serves the public interest.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-9
Berkeley has adopted the California Energy Code in BMC Chapter 19.36. In addition, BMC Section

19.36.040, includes a “reach code” that exceeds the energy efficiency standards of the California Energy Code.

4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact to air quality, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:

Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard;
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

BAAQMD Significance Thresholds
The plan-level thresholds specified in the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were used to determine whether the proposed project impacts exceed the thresholds identified in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

Consistency with the Air Quality Plan
Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with CEQA Guidelines thresholds should demonstrate that a project:

1. Supports the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan;

2. Includes applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan; and

3. Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures.

Construction Emissions Thresholds
The BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines have no plan-level significance thresholds for construction air pollutants emissions. However, they do include project-level screening and emissions thresholds for temporary construction-related emissions of air pollutants. These thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB‘s existing air quality conditions and are discussed in detail below (BAAQMD 2017a). Construction emissions associated with plan implementation are discussed qualitatively to evaluate potential air quality impacts.

The BAAQMD developed screening criteria in the 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. The screening criteria for residential land uses are shown in Table 4.2-3.

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

4.2-10
Table 4.2-3 BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Screening Levels Land Use Type
Operational Criteria
Pollutant Screening Size (du)
Construction Criteria
Pollutant Screening Size (du)
Single-family 325 (NOX) 114 (ROG)
Apartment, low-rise 451 (ROG) 240 (ROG)
Apartment, mid-rise 494 (ROG) 240 (ROG)
Apartment, high-rise 510 (ROG) 249 (ROG)
Condo/townhouse, general 451 (ROG) 240 (ROG)
Condo/townhouse, high-rise 511 (ROG) 252 (ROG)
Mobile home park 450 (ROG) 114 (ROG)
Retirement community 487 (ROG) 114 (ROG)
Congregate care facility 657 (ROG) 240 (ROG)
du = dwelling unit; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases Source: BAAQMD 2017a
If a project meets the screening criteria, then the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s air pollutant emissions. These screening levels are generally representative of new development on greenfield sites without any form of mitigation measures taken into consideration (BAAQMD 2017a).

In addition to the screening levels above, several additional factors are outlined in the 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that construction activities must satisfy for a project to meet the construction screening criteria:
 All basic construction measures from the 2017 CEQA Guidelines must be included in project design and implemented during construction
 Construction-related activities would not include any of the following:
 Demolition
 Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously)
 Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development)
 Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity
For projects that do not meet the screening criteria above, the BAAQMD construction significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, shown in Table 4.2-4, are used to evaluate a project’s potential air quality impacts.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-11
Table 4.2-4 BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Construction Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Operational Threshold
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Operational Threshold
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
Fugitive
Dust
Construction Dust Ordinance or
other Best Management Practices
Not Applicable Not Applicable
lbs = pounds; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns
Source: BAAQMD 2017a
For all projects in the SFBAAB, the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommends implementation of the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures listed in Table 8-2 of the Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a). For projects that exceed the thresholds in Table 4.2-4, the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommends implementation of the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures listed in Table 8-3 of the Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a).

Operation Emissions Thresholds
The BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain specific operational plan-level significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Plans must show the following over the planning period:
 Consistency with current air quality plan control measures, and  Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or vehicle trips increase is less than or equal to the plan’s projected population increase.

If a plan can demonstrate consistency with both criteria, then impacts would be less than significant.

The current air quality plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

For project-level thresholds, the screening criteria for operational emissions are shown in Table 4.2-3. For projects that do not meet the screening criteria, the BAAQMD operational significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, shown in Table 4.2-4, are used to evaluate a project’s potential air quality impacts.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
BAAQMD provides a preliminary screening methodology to conservatively determine whether a proposed project would exceed CO thresholds. If the following criteria are met, the individual project would result in a less than significant impact related to local CO concentrations:

The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and

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

4.2-12
Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

Toxic Air Contaminants
For health risks associated with TAC and PM2.5 emissions, the BAAQMD May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state a project would result in a significant impact if the any of the following thresholds are exceeded (BAAQMD 2017a):
 Non-compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan;  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
Lead
Projects would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 1 (Lead), which is intended to control the emission of lead to the atmosphere.

Asbestos
Demolition of buildings would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing waste material generated or handled during these activities. This rule requires notification of BAAQMD of any regulated demolition activity, and contains specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. Impacts related to asbestos emissions from projects that comply with Regulation 11, Rule 2 are considered to be less than significant since the regulation would ensure the proper and safe disposal of asbestos containing material.

Odors
The BAAQMD provides minimum distances for siting of new odor sources shown in Table 4.2-5. A significant impact would occur if the project would result in other emissions (such as odors) affecting substantial numbers of people or would site a new odor source as shown in Table 4.2-5 within the specified distances of existing receptors.

Table 4.2-5 BAAQMD Odor Source Thresholds
Odor Source Minimum Distance for Less than Significant Odor Impacts (in miles) Wastewater Treatment Plant 2
Waste
water Pumping Facilities 1
Sanitary Landfill 2
Transfer Station 1
Composting Facility 1
Petroleum Refinery 2
Asphalt Batch Plant 2
Chemical Manufacturing 2

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-13
Odor Source Minimum Distance for Less than Significant Odor Impacts (in miles) Fiberglass Manufacturing 1
Painting/Coating Operations 1
Rendering Plant 2
Source: BAAQMD 2017a
b. Methodology
Construction Emissions
Construction-related emissions are temporary but may still result in adverse air quality impacts.

Construction of development associated with the proposed project would generate temporary emissions from three primary sources: the operation of construction vehicles (e.g., scrapers, loaders, dump trucks, etc.); ground disturbance during site preparation and grading, which creates fugitive dust; and the application of asphalt, paint, or other oil-based substances.

At this time, there is not sufficient detail to allow project-level analysis and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts. Rather, consistent with the programmatic nature of the project and this program EIR, construction impacts for the proposed Housing Element Update are discussed qualitatively and emissions are not compared to the project-level thresholds.

Operation Emissions
Based on plan-level guidance from the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, long-term operational emissions associated with implementation of the proposed project are discussed qualitatively by comparing the proposed project to the 2017 Clean Air Plan goals, policies, and control measures. In addition, comparing the rate of increase of plan VMT and population is recommended by BAAQMD for determining significance of criteria pollutants. If the proposed project does not meet either criterion then impacts would be potentially significant. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact AQ-1 THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE CONTROL MEASURES WITHIN THE 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN, AND VMT INCREASE FROM THE PROJECT WOULD BE LESS THAN THE PROJECT’S PROJECT POPULATION INCREASE. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Project Consistency with the Current Air Quality Plan
A project that would not support the goals within the 2017 Clean Air Plan would not be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the 2017 Clean Air Plan goals. Consistent with Policy H-15 and H-16 of the HEU, which encourages higher-density zoning and transit-oriented development, the project would encourage denser housing on housing inventory sites near transit corridors, BART stations, and Priority Development Areas such as the Southside Plan Area and the Downtown Plan Area at various levels of affordability. By allowing for the easier use of alternative modes of transportation through proximity to services, bus stops, the BART stations and bike routes,

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

4.2-14
development facilitated by the project would reduce the use of personal vehicles and subsequent mobile emissions than if housing inventory sites were placed farther from transit. In addition, development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 regulations, including requirements for residential indoor air quality. The analysis is based on compliance with 2019 Title 24 requirements although individual projects developed under the plan would be required to comply with the most current version of Title 24 at the time of project construction. These requirements currently mandate Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value 13 (or equivalent) filters for heating/cooling systems and ventilation systems in residences (Section 150.0[m]) or implementation of future standards that would be anticipated to be equal to or more stringent than current standards. Therefore, the project would improve air quality compared to development farther from transit and services through reducing VMT and would protect public health through stringent requirements for MERV-13 filters or equivalent indoor air quality measures, which would be consistent with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Table 4.2-6 Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Plan Control Measures Clean Air Plan Control Measures Consistency
Transportation
TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and
Facilities. Encourage planning for bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in local plans, e.g.,
general and specific plans, fund bike lanes,
routes, paths and bicycle parking facilities.

Consistent: As a h
ousing plan, the HEU in itself does not include bicycle or pedestrian improvements. Howev
er, future development facilitated
under the proposed project must comply with residential bicycle parking requirements pursuant to BMC Section 23.322.090. Additionally, 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. The City also has over 2,660 short-term bicycle parking spaces as well as bike corrals, lockers, and a bike station adjacent to the Downtown Berkeley BART station which future residents could utilize (City of Berkeley 2017). The BMC also includes required minimum bicycle parking requirements for residential developments.

Energy
EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand. Work
with local governments to adopt additional
energy-efficiency policies and programs.

Support local government energy efficiency
program via best practices, model
ordinances, and technical support. Work
with partners to develop messaging to
decrease electricity demand during peak
times.

Consistent: Future development facilitated under the proposed project would be required to comply with BMC Section 19.36.040, which is a “reach code” that exceeds the energy efficiency standards of the California Energy Code. Part 6 of Title 24 requires all new low-rise buildings to install photovoltaic (PV) panels that can generate an output greater or equal to the amount of electricity that is annually consumed.

Furthermore, BMC Section 19.37.040 requires 20 percent of parking spaces to be electric vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting future electric vehicle chargers and 80 percent of parking spaces to include raceways to facilitate future electric vehicle supply equipment at all new multi-family developments; and for new one- and two-family dwelling units to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit for a future EV charger. In addition, new construction would be required to be all electric per the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy resources.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-15
Clean Air Plan Control Measures Consistency
Buildings
BL1: Green Buildings. Collaborate with
partners such as KyotoUSA to identify
energy-related improvements and
opportunities for on-site renewable energy
systems in school districts; investigate
funding strategies to implement upgrades.

Identify barriers to effective local
implementation of the CALGreen (Title 24)
statewide building energy code; develop
solutions to improve
implementation/enforcement. Work with
ABAG’s BayREN program to make
additional funding available for energy-
related projects in the buildings sector.

Engage with additional partners to target
reducing emissions from specific types of
buildings.

Consistent: Future development facilitated by the proposed HEU would be required to comply with the energy and sustainability standards of Title 24 (including the California Energy Code and CALGreen) and the City’s associated amendments that are in effect at that time. For example, the current 2019 CALGreen standards and the City’s associated amendments in BMC Chapter 19.37 require a minimum 65 percent diversion of construction/demolition waste, use of low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, and dedicated circuitry for electric vehicle charging stations. All new low-rise residential buildings would also be required to install solar PV panels. The Title 24 standards are updated every three years and become increasingly more stringent over time. Additionally, new construction would be required to be all electric per the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy resources. Policy H-13 of the HEU would also ensure energy efficiency in new buildings in order to reduce energy costs and GHGs.

Water
WR2: Support Water Conservation.

Develop a list of best practices that reduce
water consumption and increase on-site
water recycling in new and existing
buildings; incorporate into local planning
guidance.

Consistent: Future development requiring new or expanded water service would be required to comply with East Bay Municipal Utility District’s Section 31 water efficiency regulations, which include best practice requirements that are more stringent than CALGreen and the state’s Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance to reduce indoor and outdoor water use.

Source: BAAQMD 2017b
As shown in Table 4.2-6, the project would be consistent with the applicable measures as development facilitated by it would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 regulations and would increase density in urban areas, allowing for greater use of alternative modes of transportation. Development facilitated by the project does not contain elements that would disrupt or hinder implementation of a 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. Therefore, the project would conform to this determination of consistency for the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Project VMT and Population
According to the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors includes an assessment of the rate of increase of plan VMT versus population growth. As discussed above under Section 4.2.3(a), to result in a less than significant impact, the analysis must show that over the planning period, the proposed project’s projected VMT increase would be less than or equal to its projected population increase. As shown in Table 4.2-7 under Impact 2, the proposed net percentage VMT increase associated with the proposed project (approximately 38 percent) would be less than the net percentage population increase (approximately 43 percent). Therefore, the project’s VMT increase would not conflict with the BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines operational plan-level significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants and would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

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

4.2-16
Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 2: Would t he project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
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.

Construction
Buildout under the project may involve activities that result in air pollutant emissions. Construction activities such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris, and fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment would generate pollutant emissions. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants, particularly during site preparation and grading. The extent of daily emissions, particularly ROGs and NOX emissions, generated by construction equipment, would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) whether transporting excavated materials offsite is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts. According to the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, PM10 is the greatest pollutant of concern during construction (BAAQMD 2017a).

As discussed above, BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines have no plan-level significance thresholds for construction air pollutant emissions that would apply to the project. However, the guidelines include project-level thresholds for construction emissions. If an individual project is subject to CEQA and has construction emissions that fall below the project-level thresholds, the project’s impacts on regional air quality would be individually and cumulatively less than significant.

The BAAQMD has also identified feasible fugitive dust control measures for construction activities.

These Basic Construction Mitigation Measures are recommended for all projects (BAAQMD 2017a) and will be included as Mitigation Measure AQ-1 as described below under Fugitive Dust Emissions.

In addition, the BAAQMD and CARB have regulations that address the handling of hazardous air pollutants such as lead and asbestos, which could be aerially disbursed during demolition activities.

BAAQMD rules and regulations address both the handling and transport of these contaminants.

Construction of development envisioned under the project would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, possibly creating localized areas of unhealthy air pollution concentrations or air quality nuisances. Therefore, construction air quality impacts would be potentially significant. However, development projects in Berkeley are required to comply with Standard Conditions of Approval for use permits under the Zoning Ordinance. This includes the following:

Air Quality – Dies
el Particulate Matter Controls During Construction. All off-road construction equipment used for projects with construction lasting more than 2 months shall comply with one of the following measures:

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-17
A. The project applicant shall prepare a health risk assessment that demonstrates the project’s on-site emissions of diesel particulate matter during construction will not exceed health risk screening criteria after a screening -level health risk assessment is conducted in accordance with current guidance from BAAQMD and OEHHA. The health risk assessment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and app roval prior to the issuance of building permits.

B. All construction equipment shall be equipped with Tier 2 or higher engines and the most eff
ective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type (Tier 4 engines automatical ly meet this requirement) as certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

In addition, a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (Emissions Plan) shall be prepared that includes the following:
 An eq
uipment inventory summarizing the type of off-road equipment required for each phase of construction, including the equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. For all VDECS, the equipment inventory shall also include the technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, CARB verification number level, and installation date.
 A Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully with the Emissions Plan and acknowledges that a significant violation of the Emissions Plan shall constitute a material breach of contract. The Emissions Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

Additionally, future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with Berkeley General Plan Policy EM-18 as detailed in Section 4.2.1c in order to reduce construction emissions.

Future development would be required to implement the City of Berkeley standard conditions of approval and General Plan Policy EM-18. Nonetheless, individual projects may be inconsistent with BAAQMD guidance if the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures are not implemented. This impact is potentially significant and mitigation is required.

Fugitive Dust Emissions
Site preparation and grading during construction activities facilitated by development under the proposed project may cause wind-blown dust that could contribute particulate matter into the local atmosphere. The BAAQMD has not established a quantitative threshold for fugitive dust emissions but rather states that projects that incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control during construction would have a less-than-significant impact related to fugitive dust emissions. As described above, future development facilitated by the project would be required to implement the City’s standard condition of approval to reduce construction emissions. However, these projects would not specifically be required to comply with BAAQMD’s BMPs. Therefore, impacts related to fugitive dust emissions would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is required.

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

4.2-18
AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction Measures
As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future develo
pment 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.

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.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to require the BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures and required application of the City’s air quality Standard Condition of Approval.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-19
Threshold 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Impact AQ-2 VMT FROM THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE AT A LOWER RATE COMPARED TO POPULATION GROWTH FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT. THEREFORE, OPERATIONAL IMPACTS RELATED TO CRITERIA POLLUTANTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Operation
According to the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors requires an assessment of the rate of increase of plan VMT and population.

Table 4.2-7 summarizes the net increase in population versus VMT based on VMT modeling performed by Kittelson & Associates (Appendix H). Because the VMT associated with project buildout would increase by approximately 38 percent, it would not exceed the rate of increase from the forecast population of approximately 43 percent. VMT increases at a lower percentage because the proposed project would change land uses to concentrate growth and residences to jobs and services to reduce singular vehicle trips and encourage alternative models of travel. Therefore, impacts concerning criteria pollutants generated from operation of the project would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-7 Increase in Population Compared to VMT Under Project Scenario 2020 Without Project 2031 With Project Net Increase Percent Change Population 128,004 182,651 54,647 +43%
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
1,436,244 1,983,715 547,471 +38%
Source: Data provided by Kittelson & Associates, Inc 2022 (Appendix H) Mitigation Measure
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 3: Woul d the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
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 INCORPORATED.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard. The entire Basin is in conformance with state and federal CO standards, as indicated by the recent air quality monitoring. There are no current exceedances of CO standards within the air district and

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

4.2-20
have not had a CO exceedance in the Bay Area since before 1994.2 For 2019 the Bay Area’s reported maximum 1-hour and average daily concentrations of CO were 5.6 ppm and 1.7 ppm respectively (BAAQMD 2019).3 These are well below the respective 1-hour and 8-hour standards of 20 ppm and 9 ppm. Given the ambient concentrations, which includes mobile as well as stationary sources, a project in the Bay Area would need to emit concentrations three times the hourly maximum ambient emissions for all sources before project emissions would exceed the 1-hour standard.

Additionally, the project would need to emit seven times the daily average for ambient concentrations to exceed the 8-hour standards. Typical development projects, even plan level growth, would not emit the levels of CO necessary to result in a localized hot spot. Therefore, impacts to CO hotspots would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction
Construction-related activities would result in short-term emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, and clearing), building construction, and other miscellaneous activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential non-cancer
4 health impacts (CARB 2021a).

Generation of DPM from construction typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of development facilitated by the project would occur over approximately a decade but use of diesel-powered construction equipment in any one area would likely occur for no more than a few years for an individual project and would cease when construction is completed in that area. It is impossible to quantify risk without identified specific project details and locations.

The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the development (OEHHA 2015). BAAQMD use an exposure period of 30 years (BAAQMD 2016).

The maximum PM
10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during demolition, site preparation and grading activities, which would only occur for a portion of the overall estimated timeframe of one to eight years for construction of housing units facilitated by the HEU. These activities would typically last for approximately two weeks to two years, depending on the extent of grading and excavation required (e.g., projects with subterranean parking structures or geological constraints require additional grading as compared to those without). PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and architectural coating would require less intensive construction equipment. While the maximum

2 BAAQMD only has records for annual air quality summaries dating back to 1994. 3 Data for 2019 was used as the data for 2020 and 2021 are not currently available. 4 Non-cancer risks include premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma, increased respiratory symptoms, and decreased lung function (CARB 2021a).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-21
DPM emissions associated with demolition, site preparation, and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst-case condition for the total construction period. This would represent between 0.1 to 7 percent of the total 30-year exposure period for health risk calculation.

Each project developed under the plan would be required to be consistent with the applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD regulatory requirements and control strategies, and the CARB In-Use Off- Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which are intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Additionally, future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requiring implementation of construction emission measures which would reduce construction-related TACs. According to the OEHHA, construction of individual projects lasting longer than two months or placed within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore could result in potentially significant risk impacts (OEHHA 2015).

These projects could exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million and an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute).

Therefore, construction impacts from TAC emissions would be potentially significant and mitigation is required.

Operation
In the Bay Area, there are several urban or industrialized communities where the exposure to TACs is relatively high in comparison to others. The western portion of the City is located in an impacted community according to BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (Figure 5-1) due to its proximity to the freeway, rail, and industry. Sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways and high-volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities (BAAQMD 2017a).

Operation of development facilitated by the project would not involve these uses; therefore, it is not considered a source of TACs. In addition, residences do not typically include new stationary sources onsite, such as emergency diesel generators. However, if residences did include a new stationary source onsite, it would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 (New Source Review) and require permitting. This process would ensure that the stationary source does not exceed applicable BAAQMD health risk thresholds. Additionally, BAAQMD employs the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program, which applies strategies to reduce health impacts in impacted communities (BAAQMD 2014). CARE is currently activated in Berkeley since it is an impacted community. Therefore, Project-related TAC impacts during operation would be less than significant.

Asbestos
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing waste material generated or handled during these activities (BAAQMD 2017a). The rule addresses the national emissions standards for asbestos along with some additional requirements. The rule requires the Lead Agency and its contractors to notify BAAQMD of any regulated renovation or demolition activity. This notification includes a description of structures and methods utilized to determine whether asbestos-containing materials are potentially present. All asbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition or renovation activity in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. Therefore, individual projects that comply with Regulation 11, Rule 2 would ensure that asbestos-containing materials would be disposed of

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

4.2-22
appropriately and safely. By complying with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, thereby minimizing the release of airborne asbestos emissions, demolition activity would not result in a significant impact to air quality. Per the BAAQMD Guidelines, because BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is in place, no further analysis about the demolition of asbestos-containing materials is needed in a CEQA document (BAAQMD 2017).

Project Siting
Development facilitated by the project would occur under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD. CARB screening methodology for project siting is used in this analysis. In 2005, CARB issued recommendations to avoid siting new residences within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day or close to known stationary TAC sources (CARB 2005). BAAQMD’s average daily traffic (ADT) threshold is lower, at 10,000 vehicles per day (BAAQMD 2012).

Development facilitated by the project could place sensitive receptors living in housing within approximately 500 to 1,000 feet of Interstate 580 (I-580) and Interstate 80 (I-80). The only housing inventory sites within 500 feet of I-580 is the site located at 2031 Second Street. Two other sites at the locations 1834 Fourth Street and 1920 Fourth Street are located within 1,000 feet of the I-580.

There is also the potential for development to occur within 500 feet of a roadway that has 10,000 vehicles per day or more such as University Avenue, Adeline Street, Telegraph Avenue, Claremont Avenue, and Gilman Street (Caltrans 2020). Development of these sites would create a potentially significant impact and implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would be required for future development.

Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the residential indoor air quality requirements in the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which currently require Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value 13 (or equivalent) filters for heating/cooling systems and ventilation systems in residences (Section 150.0[m]). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system.

Therefore, the project would not expose its future sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and related impacts would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is required.

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:
 Non-compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan;  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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-23
If risk exceeds the thresholds, measures such as requiring the use of Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment shall be incorporated to reduce the risk to appropriate levels.

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.

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

Significance After Mitigation
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.

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

4.2-24
Threshold 4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
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.

During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust both during normal use and when idling. However, these odors would be temporary and transitory and would cease upon completion. Therefore, development facilitated by the project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Table 4.2-5 provides BAAQMD odor screening distances for land uses with the potential to generate substantial odor complaints. Those uses include wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, and chemical plants. As development facilitated by the project would be residential, none of the uses identified in the table would occur on the sites. Therefore, development facilitated by the project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during operation. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation measures are not required. d. Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative context for air quality is regional. The SFBAAB is in non-attainment for federal standards of ozone and PM2.5 and in non-attainment for the State standard for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The SFBAAB is in attainment of all other federal and State standards. Development facilitated by the project would generate particulate matter and the ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) in the area during construction and operation.

As described under Impact AQ-1, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures as development facilitated by the project would comply with the latest Title 24 regulations and would increase density in urban areas in proximity to transit, allowing for greater use of alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, the increase in VMT would not exceed the projected population increase per the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for operational emissions from plans. Discussion of these impacts considers the cumulative nature of criteria pollutants in the region. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

As described under Impact AQ-2, project construction would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, possibly creating localized areas of unhealthy air pollution levels or air quality nuisances.

BAAQMD has identified feasible fugitive dust control measures for construction activities to minimize fugitive PM
10 and PM2.5. Therefore, temporary construction impacts citywide would be mitigated with Mitigation Measures AQ-1. Discussion of these impacts considers the cumulative nature of criteria pollutants in the region; therefore, with mitigation the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant from construction emissions.

As identified under Impact AQ-3, development facilitated by the project would not have a significant impact from CO hotspots or TACs with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3.

Discussion of these impacts considers the cumulative nature of the pollutants in the region, e.g., the

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-25
cancer risk and non-cancer risk thresholds have been set per existing cancer risks in the area, and exceeding those thresholds would be considered a cumulative impact. As development facilitated by the project would not exceed those thresholds, it would not expose sensitive receptors to a cumulatively considerable amount of substantial pollutant concentrations from CO hotspots or TACs.

As identified under Impact AQ-4, development facilitated by the project would not have a significant impact from odor emissions. The consideration of cumulative odor impacts is limited to cases when projects constructed simultaneously are within a few hundred yards of each other because of the short range of odor dispersion. It is unlikely that construction of housing inventory sites would occur within a few hundred yards of major off-site construction. Therefore, development facilitated by the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable odor impact.

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

4.2-26

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-1

4.3 Biological Resources
This section analyzes the effects of the proposed HEU on biological resources and the associated impacts. The impact analysis presented herein is intended to assess the potential impact the proposed project may have on biological resources, and where impacts are significant, to propose appropriate mitigation relative to the existing goals of the General Plan and with reference to federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and management policies addressing biological resources.

4.3.1 Existing Conditions
The following sections present the methods and results for determining the existing conditions for the proposed project with regard to biological resources. Except where specified below, the study area included the City of Berkeley, the area subject to the proposed HEU. a. Land Cover
Based on a desktop review, nine land cover types were mapped within City boundaries using the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Wildlife Habitat Relationships habitat classification system (CDFW 2014). A description of each of the vegetation communities and land cover types adapted from A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988) is presented below. The land cover types are mapped on Figure 4.3-1. It should be noted that these vegetation communities and land cover types are broadly mapped, and site specific fine-scale variation in vegetation communities is likely to be present.

The majority of Berkeley is urbanized and the areas of the city that would be affected by the project generally do not include substantial areas of open space or undeveloped, unpaved land. Developed areas correspond with the “urban” land cover type described in the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], 2022c; Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). As such, vegetation is limited largely to ornamental landscaping and trees in commercial areas, residential neighborhoods, and along park strips and street medians. Plant species in urban areas are highly variable, and vegetation structure includes shade/street trees, lawns, and shrub cover.

Ruderal vegetation occurs along roadsides and vacant lots. Ruderal vegetation is associated with urban areas where substantial ground disturbance activities occur. Ruderal areas are often found along roadsides, fence-lines, and in areas undergoing urban development. Ruderal plant communities are not described by Holland (1986), Sawyer et al. (2009), or Mayer and Laudenslayer (1988). They are typically dominated by herbaceous plants (i.e., forbs) such as mustards (Brassica spp.), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), and mallows (Malva spp.), and include many non-native annual grasses such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oats (Avena spp.), and foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum).

The western boundary of Berkeley includes the marine environment of the San Francisco Bay, and lacustrine and saline emergent wetlands along the coast. The foothills on the eastern boundary of Berkely include annual and perennial grasslands and various woodlands.

The following sections describe the natural communities and land cover types in Berkeley.

Generally, the proposed project would focus development in already-developed and disturbed urban areas.

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

4.3-2
Figure 4.3-1 Landcover Types in Berkeley

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-3
Urban
This land cover type is completely anthropogenic and is composed of residential, commercial, and industrial developed areas. Plant species within urban areas are typically comprised of ornamental plants and non-native invasive plant species, with large, developed areas lacking vegetation. The vast majority of the inventory sites, middle housing rezoning districts, and the Southside area are located within the Urban land cover type. Some parts of the R-1 and R-2 districts and some inventory sites are in other vegetation areas as mapped on Figure 4.3-1.

Annual and Perennial Grasslands
Annual and perennial grassland habitats are herbaceous communities composed primarily of annual and perennial grass and forb species. These vegetation communities exists in high abundance throughout the City, where introduced annual grasses are the dominant plant species. These include wild oats (
Avena sp.), soft chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (B. diandrus), red brome (B. madritensis), wild barley (Hordeum murinum), and foxtail fescue (Festuca myuros). Common forbs include broadleaf filaree (Erodium botrys), redstem filaree (E. cicutarium), turkey mullein (Croton setiger), true clovers (Trifolium spp.), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), popcorn flowers (Plagiobothrys spp.), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and many others. Native perennial grasses, found in moist, lightly grazed, or relic prairie areas, are dominated by California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), Pacific hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa holciformis), and sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum).

Annual grassland communities and relic perennial grasslands within them occur in patches of various sizes throughout the State. Annual grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Annual grasslands provide habitat for many wildlife species, including western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), c
ommon garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), western rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus oreganus), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae).

Blue Oak Woodland
Blue oak woodlands occur in the City and vary in species composition. have an overstory of scattered trees, although the canopy can be nearly closed The canopy is dominated by broad-leaved trees 5 to 15 m (16 to 50 ft) tall, commonly forming open savanna-like stands on dry ridges and gentle slopes. Blue oaks may reach 25 m (82 ft) in height. Shrubs are often present but rarely extensive, often occurring on rock outcrops. Typical understory is composed of an extension of Annual Grassland vegetation. Blue oak woodlands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), California scrub jays (Aphelocoma californica).

Coastal Oak Woodland
Coastal oak woodlands occur in the City and vary in species composition. The overstory consists of deciduous and evergreen hardwoods, mostly oaks (Quercus spp.) (15 to 70 feet tall) sometimes mixed with scattered conifers. In mesic sites, the trees are dense and form a closed canopy. In drier sites, the trees are widely spaced, forming an open woodland or savannah. The understory is equally variable. In some instances, it is composed of shrubs from adjacent chaparral or coastal scrub which forms a dense, almost impenetrable understory. More commonly, shrubs are scattered under and between trees. The soils and parent material on which coastal oak woodlands occur are

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

4.3-4
extremely variable (CDFW 2014). Coastal oak woodlands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including California quail (Callipepla californica), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus).

Non-Native Vegetation
This land cover type is not a CHWR classification. Non-native vegetation occurs within the City and generally includes ruderal grasslands, landscaped areas, and stands of eucalyptus. These vegetation types are generally associated with landscaped areas and ornamental plantings and have been grouped together. The physical characteristics and species composition of non-native grasslands are variable. Common grass species include wild oats, soft chess brome, ripgut brome, and red brome.

Some grasslands are utilized for livestock grazing and are differentiated from pasture vegetation types based on management and species composition. Landscaped areas include plantings of non- native ornamental and exotic species of trees, shrubs and ground covers and may include edible plants such as fruit trees. Eucalyptus stands are generally planted in rows for use as a wind break, and overtime, young trees may recruit into spaces between the planted trees. In most cases, eucalyptus forms a dense stand with a closed canopy. Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) and red gum eucalyptus (E. camaldulensis) are the most common eucalyptus species found in these stands.

Valley Oak Woodland
Remnant patches of this habitat are found in the Sacramento Valley from Redding south, in the San Joaquin Valley to the Sierra Nevada foothills, in the Tehachapi Mountains, and in valleys of the Coast Range from Lake County to western Los Angeles County. This habitat varies from savanna-like to forest-like stands with partially closed canopies, comprised mostly of winter-deciduous, broad- leaved species. Within the City this community occurs in open areas that are generally flat to rolling hills. Canopies of these woodlands are dominated almost exclusively by valley oaks (CDFW 2014).

The shrub understory consists of poison oak, blue elderberry, toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California coffeeberry, and California blackberry. Various species of wild oats, bromes (Bromus spp.), barleys (Hordeum spp.), ryegrasses (Festuca spp.), and needlegrasses (Stipa spp.) dominate the ground cover.

These woodlands provide food and cover for many species of wildlife, include European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), California quail, plain titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), r
ufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), and acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus).

Montane Hardwood Conifer
Montane Hardwood-Conifer habitat includes both conifers and hardwoods. The habitat often occurs in a mosaic-like pattern with small purestands of conifers interspersed with small stands of broad- leaved trees. This landcover consists of a broad spectrum of mixed, conifer and hardwood species.

Typically, conifers up to 200 ft in height form the upper canopy and broad-leaved trees 30 to 100 ft in height comprise the lower canopy.

Relatively little understory occurs under the dense, canopy. However, considerable ground and shrub cover can occur in ecotones or following disturbance such as fire or logging.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-5
Saline Emergent Wetland
Saline Emergent Wetlands are characterized as salt or brackish marshes consisting of perennial grasslike plants and forbs, along with algal mats. The component plants occur sometimes in zones but more often in patches or as a sequence of overlapping species along an elevational gradient.

Vegetational coverage is complete or nearly so except where creeks and ponds are present or following disturbance Vegetational coverage is complete or nearly complete except where creeks and ponds are present.

Lacustrine
Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions or dammed riverine channels containing standing water.

They may vary from small ponds less than one hectare to large areas covering several square kilometers. Depth can vary from a few centimeters to hundreds of meters. Typical lacustrine habitats include permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs (e.g., Lake Tahoe and Shasta Lake), intermittent lakes (e.g., playa lakes) and ponds (including vernal pools) so shallow that rooted plants can grow over the bottom. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life; intermittent types usually do not.
b. Wetlands and Waterways
A query of the USFWS’s National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2022c) was conducted. Aerial imagery and the U.S. Geological Service’s National Hydrology Dataset (2022) was also reviewed to determine if aquatic resources potentially falling under the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFW (i.e., jurisdictional waters), such as federally and State protected wetlands, occur in the City.

Berkeley contains five principal creeks: Derby, Potter, Strawberry, Schoolhouse, and Codornices, all of which flow west from the Berkeley Hills into the San Francisco Bay. In addition, there are eight other creeks that are at least partially within the City limits (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2022c). Due to urban development, once natural watercourses now flow through concrete ditches and culverts, in many cases flowing underground, and ultimately draining into the San Francisco Bay. Local parks may feature natural or man-made ponds and there are estuarine and marine wetlands along the San Francisco Bay. Figure 4.7-1 in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, shows stormwater, drainage, and creeks in and in the vicinity of Berkeley. c. Special-Status Species
For the purposes of this EIR, special-status species include:
 Species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); including proposed and candidate species
 Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
 Species designated as Fully Protected by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), and Species of Special Concern or Watch List by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)  Plant species protected by the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (State Rare)  California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B

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

4.3-6
 Species designated as locally important by the Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance, local policy, or HCPs/NCCPs
Queries of the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) (USFWS 2022a), Cali
fornia Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2022a), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding special-status species and sensitive vegetation communities known or having potential to occur in the study area. Query of the CNPS inventory included the Oakland West, Oakland East, Briones Valley, and Richmond California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and/or surrounding 12 quadrangles (San Leandro, Hunters Point, San Francisco South, San Francisco North, San Quentin, Walnut Creek, Las Trampas Ridge, Hayward, Mare Island, Petaluma Point, Benicia and Vine Hill). Query of the CNDDB included the City of Berkeley plus a five-mile buffer. The results of these scientific database queries were compiled into Table B-1 and Table B-2 included in Appendix B. A query of the USFWS’ Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2022b) was conducted to determine if any USFWS-designated critical habitat occurs in the proposed project area.

A total of 59 special-status plants were identified within the 16 quadrangles queried (CNPS 2022), and 51 special-status animals were identified within five miles of the City of Berkeley (CDFW 2022a).

Appendix B presents lists of the special-status plant and animal species identified by the database queries. Many of these species have sensitivity ratings below the threshold for significant impacts from development in urban settings under CEQA, or there are no recent records of the species occurring within the City of Berkeley in the past ten years. Berkeley proper is urbanized and developed, it is lacking in suitable habitats for special-status plants, and with the exception of avian taxa, lacking in suitable habitat for special-status animals. However, the eastern and western borders of Berkeley feature marine and estuarian habitats and foothill woodlands and grasslands, respectively, where special-status species are more likely to occur. The vast majority of the inventory sites, the middle housing rezoning districts, and the Southside are not located in these habitat types.
d. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Critical Habitat No natural vegetation communities considered sensitive by the CDFW occur in the City of Berkeley; however, the following four sensitive natural communities occur within a 5-mile radius (CDFW 2022a):
 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
 Northern Maritime Chaparral
 Serpentine Bunchgrass
 Valley Needlegrass grassland
No USFWS-designated critical habitat occurs in the City of Berkeley; however, critical habitat for the following five species occurs within a 5-mile radius of the City of Berkeley (USFWS 2022b):
 Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis)
 California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
 Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris)
 Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia)

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-7
e. Nesting Birds
Suitable substrates for avian species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), including shrubs, trees, man-made structures, and the ground surface, occur throughout the proposed project area. Some species prefer vegetation, including ornamental vegetation, and some species can be found nesting in man-made structures, such as power poles or the eaves of buildings. Nesting birds may occur during the breeding season (generally February 1 through August 31; beginning January 1 for some raptor species). f. Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.

Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.

The habitats within the link do not necessarily need to be the same as the habitats that are being linked. Rather, the link merely needs to contain sufficient cover and forage to allow temporary inhabitation by ground-dwelling species. Typically, habitat linkages are contiguous strips of natural areas, though dense plantings of landscape vegetation can be used by certain disturbance-tolerant species. Depending upon the species using a corridor, specific physical resources (such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, or oak trees) may need to be located within the habitat link at certain intervals to allow slower-moving species to traverse the link. For highly mobile or aerial species, habitat linkages may be discontinuous patches of suitable resources spaced sufficiently close together to permit travel along a route in a short period of time.

Wildlife movement corridors can be both large and small scale. One essential connectivity area is mapped by the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) along the eastern border of the City of Berkeley (CDFW 2022b). The corridor connects several natural landscape blocks in the east San Francisco Bay Area. From the foothills southeast of San Pablo Bay it extends southeast, parallel with the San Francisco Bay, and connects with the Diablo Range east of Fremont. This essential connectivity area as a part of the bay area hills may serve as a movement corridor for the state provisionally protected Southern California/Central Coast ESU of mountain lion. CDFW characterizes the value of essential connectivity areas based on permeability to wildlife movements.

As mapped in BIOS, the edges of the nearest connectivity area become increasingly less permeable as they extend toward Berkeley and developed areas of Alameda County.

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

FESA is intended to prevent the unlawful “take” of listed fish, wildlife, and plant species. Section 9(a)(1)(B) specifically states take of species listed as threatened or endangered is unlawful. Take is

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

4.3-8
defined as any action that would harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, shoot, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species.

Section 10 of the FESA allows the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to issue incidental take
permits if take of a listed species may occur during otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) requires a Ha
bitat Conservation Plan for an incidental take permit on non-federal lands.

Section 7 of the FESA requires federal agencies to aid in the conservation of listed species, and to ensure that the activities of federal agencies will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are responsible for administration of the FESA and have regulatory authority over federally listed species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds, and prohibits the removal of nests occupied by migratory birds. The USFWS has regulatory authority for the MBTA.

Clean Water Act
The USACE, under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and USACE implementing regulations, has jurisdiction over the placement of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States.” Congress enacted the CWA “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” In practice, the boundaries of certain waters subject to USACE jurisdiction under Section 404 have not been fully defined. Previous regulations codified in 1986 defined “waters of the United States” as traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, all other waters that could affect interstate or foreign commerce, impoundments of waters of the United States, tributaries, the territorial seas, and adjacent wetlands.

On April 21, 2020, the USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to define “Waters of the United States.” This rule, effective on June 22, 2020, defines four categories of jurisdictional waters, documents certain types of waters that are excluded from jurisdiction, and clarifies some regulatory terms. Under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, “waters of the United States” include:

Territorial seas and traditional navigable waters;
Perennial and intermittent tributaries that contribute surface flow to those waters; Certain Lakes and ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and; Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters.

Tributaries are defined as “a river, stream, or similar naturally occurring surface water channel that contributes surface water flow to the territorial seas or traditional navigable waters in a typical year either directly or through one or more tributaries, jurisdictional lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters, or adjacent wetlands.” The tributary category also includes a ditch that “either relocates a tributary, is constructed in a tributary, or is constructed in an adjacent wetland as long as the ditch is perennial or intermittent and contributes surface water flow to a traditional navigable water or territorial sea in a typical year.”

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-9
Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands that:

Abut, meaning to touch at least at one point or side of, a defined Water of the U.S.; Are inundated by flooding from a defined Water of the U.S. in a typical year; Are physically separated from a defined Water of the U.S. by a natural berm, bank, dune, or similar natural features or by artificial dike, barrier or similar artificial structures as long as direct hydrological surface connection to defined Waters of the U.S. are allowed; or, Are impounded of Waters of the U.S. in a typical year through a culvert, flood or tide gate, pump or similar artificial structure.

The Navigable Waters Protection Rule states that the following areas not considered to be jurisdictional waters even where they otherwise meet the definitions described above:

Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems; Ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation including ephemeral streams, swales, gullies, rills and pools;
Diffuse stormwater runoff and directional sheet flow over uplands; Ditches that are not defined Waters of the U.S. and not constructed in adjacent wetlands subject to certain limitations;
Prior converted cropland;
Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland if artificial irrigation ceases; Artificial lakes and ponds that are not jurisdictional impoundments and that are constructed or excavated in upland or non-jurisdictional waters;
Water-filled depressions constructed or excavated in upland or in non-jurisdictional waters for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel;
Stormwater control features constructed or excavated in uplands or in non-jurisdictional water to convey, treat, infiltrate, or stormwater run-off;
Groundwater recharge, water reuse, and wastewater recycling structures constructed or excavated in upland or in non-jurisdictional waters; and, Waste treatment systems.

USACE jurisdictional limits are typically identified by the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) or the landward edge of adjacent wetlands (where present). The OHWM is the “line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area” (33 CFR 328.3).

The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3). The USACE’s delineation procedures identify wetlands in the field based on indicators of three wetland parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.

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

4.3-10
b. State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The CDFW is responsible for administration of CESA. For projects that may affect both a State and federal listed species, compliance with the FESA will satisfy the CESA, provided the CDFW determines that the federal incidental take authorization is consistent with the CESA.

Take is defined in CFGC Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities under CFGC Section 2081. Project proponents wishing to obtain incidental take permits are able to do so through a permitting process outlined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 783.

Additionally, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the CFGC, Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively.

Projects that may result in a take of a California listed species require a take permit under the CESA.

The federal and State acts lend protection to species considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or den locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Unlike the FESA, the CESA prohibits the take of not just listed endangered or threatened species, but also candidate species (species petitioned for listing).

The CESA defines an endangered species as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.

A threatened species is defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.

Candidate species are defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.

Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085 of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened or endangered species by stating:
…no person shall import into this State, export out of this State, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this State, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-11
determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.

California Fish and Game Code - Nesting Bird Protection According to CFGC Section 3503 it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird [except English sparrows (Passer domesticus) and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)]. Sections 3503 and 3513 prohibit the taking of specific birds, their nests, eggs, or any portion thereof during the nesting season. Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3513 essentially overlaps with the federal MBTA, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird.

California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and allows the California Fish and Wildlife Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. Currently, 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants but includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; emergencies; and after properly notifying CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites, changes in land use, and in certain other situations. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 CCR 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA permitting procedures (CFG Code Section 2081) would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as "Rare." With this change, there is little practical difference between regulations and protocols for plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.

Clean Water Act Section 401, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code sec. 13050(e)). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering Section 401 of the CWA. In addition, where Federal jurisdiction is not asserted (for example, due to a lack of connectivity to a Relatively Permanent Waters [RPW] and Traditional Navigable Waters [TNW]), RWQCB assert jurisdiction over “waters of the State” pursuant to Section 13263 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State. In this event, the SWRCB may issue general Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) regarding discharges to “isolated” waters of the State if limiting criteria are not exceeded (Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Dredged or Fill Discharges to Waters Deemed by the USACE to be Outside of Federal Jurisdiction) or project-specific WDRs.

The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state except for wetlands currently. In many cases the RWQCBs interpret the limits of waters of the State to be bounded by the OHWM unless isolated conditions or ephemeral waters are present.

However, in the absence of statewide guidance each RWQCB may interpret jurisdictional boundaries within their region and the SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by the RWQCB, waters of the State may include riparian areas or other locations outside the OHWM, leading to a larger jurisdictional area over a given water body compared to the USACE.

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

4.3-12
Procedures for defining wetland waters of the State pursuant to the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State went into effect May 28, 2020. The SWRCB defines an area as wetland if, under normal circumstances:
(i) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by grou
ndwater, or shallow surface water, or both;
the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and
the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The SWRCB’s Implem
entation Guidance for the Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge and Fill Material to Waters of the State (2020), states that waters of the U.S. and waters of the State should be delineated using the standard USACE delineation procedures, taking into consideration that the methods shall be modified only to allow for the fact that a lack of vegetation does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland.

California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.

Pursuant to CFGC Section 1600, CDFW has authority over all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the state, and requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify the CDFW before beginning any activity that would “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake” that supports fish or wildlife resources.

A stream is defined as a “body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 1.72). A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required for any proposed project that would result in an adverse impact to a river, stream, or lake.

CDFW jurisdiction typically extends to the top of the bank and out to the outer edge of adjacent riparian vegetation if present. However, CDFW can take jurisdiction over a body of flowing water and the landform that conveys it, including water sources and adjoining landscape elements that are byproducts of and affected by interactions with flowing water without regard to size, duration, or the timing of flow (Brady and Vyverberg 2013).

CDFW Special Animals List
Special-status wildlife species are those species included on the CDFW “Special Animals” list (CDFW 2020). “Special Animal” is a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. The species on this list generally fall into one or more of the following categories:
 Officially listed or proposed for listing under the CESA and/or FESA  State or Federal candidate for possible listing
 Taxa that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-13
 Taxa considered by the Department to be a Species of Special Concern  Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or
have a critical vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring  Populations in California that may be on the periphery of a taxon ’s range but are threatened
with extirpation in California
c. Local
City of Berkeley General Plan
The City of Berkeley’s General Plan includes the Environmental Management Element which establishes policies for the management and conservation of Berkeley’s natural resources. Several policies are intended to facilitate environmental protection and conservation by protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the urban forest (including street and park trees) and natural habitat areas. The policies and actions relevant for biological resources are shown below:

Policy EM-1: City of Berkeley Leadership. Maintain Berkeley's position as a leader in the adoption and implementation of environmental management programs.

Policy EM-3: Regional Coordination. Promote the City's environmental management and sustainability policies and programs and encourage other cities in the region to establish similar or better policies and programs.

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

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

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

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

Policy EM-28: Natural Habitat. Restore and protect valuable, significant, or unique natural habitat areas.

Policy EM-29: Street and Park Trees. Maintain, enhance, and preserve street and park trees to improve the environment and provide habitat.

Policy EM-30: Native Plants. Use native tree and plant species to enhance ecological richness.

City of Berkeley Municipal Code
The Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) includes the following ordinances related to protection of biological resources:
 BMC Chapter 6.52, Moratorium on the Removal of Coast Live Oak Trees: This section of the BMC declares a moratorium on the removal of coast live oak trees, to prohibit any pruning of an oak that is excessive and injurious to the tree. Under this ordinance, the “removal of any single stem coast live oak tree of a circumference of 18 inches or more and any multi-stemmed coast live oak with an aggregate circumference of 26 inches or more at a distance of four feet up from the ground within the City of Berkeley” is prohibited. An exception may be made to this

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

4.3-14
ordinance if the City Manager finds that any tree is a potential danger to people or property due to its condition, and that the only reasonable mitigation would be tree removal.  BMC Chapter 17.08, Preservation and Restoration of Natural Watercourses: This chapter of the BLC regulates: (1) building over or near culverted creeks; (2) building near open creeks; (3) the rehabilitation and restoration of natural waterways; and (4) the management of watersheds.
 BMC Chapter 17.20, Discharge of Non-Stormwater Into the City’s Storm Drain System- Reduction of Stormwater Pollution: This chapter of the BMC includes a provision to prohibit discharges from rising groundwaters, springs, and flows from riparian habitats and wetlands.

4.3.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The proposed project does not identify specific development projects occurring at a specific location or time; and the design and scope-of-work for such projects is unknown. The proposed project involves a policy change; specifically, an update to the City’s Housing Element. Considering these circumstances, it is not possible to determine the specific impacts of future development projects that may occur as a result of the HEU. The following impact analysis serves to analyze the potential impacts of the HEU with the understanding that the existing policies and actions in the General Plan, and applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and management policies would apply to future development proposals. Subsequent environmental documents, when required, could “tier” from the HEU EIR and focus its analysis on any new significant impacts per CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 and 15385.

The analysis is based on a biological baseline (i.e., existing conditions) derived from biological resource data collected from numerous sources, including relevant literature, aerial imagery and topographic maps, and data on special-status species and sensitive habitat information obtained from the CNDDB (2022a), BIOS (CDFW 2022b), CNPS online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022), and USFWS IPaC (2022a). The USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (2022b), U.S.

Geological Service National Hydrology Data Set (2022) and National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2022c) were also queried. The methods and results are presented in detail above.

The following thresholds are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts would be significant if the proposed project would result in any of the following:

1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

3. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-15

5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or

6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conse
rvation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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.

A total of 59 special-status plants were identified within the 16 quadrangles including and surrounding the City of Berkely (CNPS 2022), and 48 special-status animals were identified within five miles of the City of Berkeley (CDFW 2022a) (Appendix B). The highly developed and urbanized core of Berkeley generally lacks suitable habitats to support special-status plants and special-status animals; however, the grassland and oak woodland habitats on the eastern boundary of the City along with the marine habitat on the western border of Berkeley may support special-status species such as western bumble bee and green sturgeon respectively. Many of the special status species within the region have sensitivity ratings below the threshold for significant impacts from development in urban settings under CEQA, or there are no records of the species occurring within the City of Berkeley in the past ten years. Depending on the location and timing of future development projects, the potential occurrence of some special status species cannot be ruled out.

The core of the City of Berkeley is developed and lacking in habitats for most special-status species.

The HEU does not include proposed development sites on the western boundary of Berkeley, where marine, estuarine, and lacustrine habitats may provide habitats for special-status species and native fish and wildlife. While the majority of the opportunity sites approved under the HEU would focus development in urbanized core of the City, some areas zoned R-1 and R-2 occur on the eastern boundary. Individual development projects in these areas may result in direct and indirect impacts to native vegetation and habitats potentially supporting native wildlife and special-status species.

Where special-status species occur, direct impacts from future development projects may include direct mortality of special-status species struck by construction equipment or vehicles during construction; crushing of burrows or habitat features providing shelter for special-status species; habitat impacts including trimming and removal of native vegetation, and grading; noise, vibration, and other disturbances that alter foraging and mating behaviors; and increased predation due to human presence and food subsidies. Habitat impacts may be permanent or temporary. Indirect impacts may include introduction and spread of nonnative species, fire, and fugitive dust, which alter habitat values; noise, lighting, and human presence which may alter migratory corridors, mating and foraging behavior; and other “edge effects” at the urban-wildland interfaces.

However, future development proposals would be subject to the Berkeley General Plan and its goals regarding the protection of biological resources. Generally, Policy EM-1 and Policy EM-3 create a framework for environmental policy and encouraging agencies, businesses, and households to focus on environmental management and sustainability. Further, Policy EM-5 encourages construction

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

4.3-16
projects to be sited, designed, constructed, and operated to minimize present and future impacts on the natural environment.

Future development projects would also be subject to state and federal laws, regulations, and management policies regarding biological resources (e.g., federal Endangered Species Act). Future development projects would be reviewed to determine whether their impacts fall within the scope 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 analysis on the potential for new significant impacts per CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 and 15385.

Considering the policies and actions of the General Plan and required compliance with federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and management policies, impacts to special-status species would be less than significant.

Trees, shrubs, man-made structures, and the ground surface throughout Berkeley provide suitable nesting substrates for birds protected under the MBTA and CFGC. If construction of specific development projects implemented under the proposed project occurs during the breeding season, impacts to nesting birds may occur. Impacts may include direct impacts to active nests, including eggs or young, if nesting substrates are removed as part of the project. Indirect impacts may result if noise, vibration, and human presence cause adult birds to abandon the nests for prolonged periods of time, preventing them from incubating eggs, brooding chicks, and defending the nest from predators. However, development projects in Berkeley are required to comply with the following Standard Condition of Approval:

Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Birds. Initial site disturbance activities, including vegetation and concrete removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 to August 30), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation and concrete removal. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed inside the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and January 31.

With compliance with City of Berkeley Standard Conditions of Approval, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-17
Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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.

The City of Berkeley is generally urbanized and developed. The dominant vegetation types include ornamental vegetation and ruderal areas. No natural vegetation communities considered sensitive by the CDFW occur in the City. Four sensitive natural community types occur within a five-mile radius of the City. Northern Coastal Salt Marsh is located within 1.5 miles to the north and south of the City of Berkeley; Northern Maritime Chaparral is located approximately three miles to the northeast of the City of Berkeley; serpentine bunchgrass is located approximately four miles to the southeast of the City of Berkeley; and valley needlegrass grassland is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the City of Berkeley. These sensitive natural vegetation communities would not be affected by development projects resulting from the proposed HEU due to their respective distances from future development that could occur under the proposed HEU.

Although some riparia n areas may occur within or adjacent to the City of Berkeley, the specif ic
development areas identified under the proposed HEU are in already developed urban areas. No impacts to riparian areas have been identified. If impacts to riparian areas are identified during the planning process for specific development projects associated with the proposed HEU, they would be subject to Berkeley’s creek protection regulations (BMC Chapter 17.08) and permitting pursuant to CFGC Section 1600 et seq. Under BMC Chapter 17.08, obstructing or interfering with watercourses is prohibited and construction within 30 feet of a culverted creek must receive a permit from the City Engineer and comply with the provisions in the chapter to ensure the watercourse is protected. The elimination or degradation of significant in-stream or riparian corridor habitat is prohibited. With compliance with these regulations, this impact would be less than significant.

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

Threshold 3: Would t he project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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.

Many of the housing opportunity sites are located on infill sites that are already developed with structures and/or parking and are not proximate to wetlands or waterways. Because these areas are currently developed, they are unlikely to contain jurisdictional wetlands or other surface waters and associated riparian vegetation zones. However, some housing opportunity sites may be in undeveloped areas or are near wetlands and streams within the City of Berkeley. Additionally, the proposed HEU would increase density in some areas, which could require upgraded utilities or

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

4.3-18
stormwater drainage. The construction of these upgraded facilities may require work, including dredge or fill, within jurisdictional wetlands and streams and could require ground disturbance in riparian habitat associated with these wetlands and streams. For development that would occur in these areas, Berkeley’s creek protection ordinance (BMC Chapter 17.08) and permitting pursuant to Section 404/401 of the CWA Section, Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC, and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act would be required. Actual jurisdictional areas are determined by the State and federal authorities at the time that permits are requested, and the agencies are responsible for describing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, if required. This impact would be less than significant.

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

Threshold 4: Would t he project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 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.

The City of Berkeley is adjacent to a designated essential connectivity area but the City of Berkeley is not within, and does not function as, a significant regional or local wildlife movement corridor.

Codornices Creek along the northern border of the City of Berkeley is one of the last remaining unchannelized perennial streams within or adjacent to the City of Berkeley. It provides a natural run for the threatened salmonid fish species. Specific development projects implemented under the proposed HEU would generally be focused in already developed urban areas within the City of Berkeley. However, if projects have the potential to result in direct impacts to Codornices Creek, the activities may impact the movement of native fish. The proposed HEU and associated future development projects would have to adhere to Berkeley General Plan Policy EM-28 Natural Habitat and the provisions of the Creek Protection Ordinance--BMC Chapter 17.08. In addition, projects under the HEU would be subject to permitting pursuant to CFGC Section 1600 et seq. Required compliance with these regulations would ensure that the watercourse is not diverted or obstructed such that it would impair the movement of native fish. With compliance with existing regulations, this impact would be less than significant.

Vegetation throughout much of the urban environment of the City of Berkeley consists of primarily non-
nati
ve landscaped trees and shrubs. Native bird species will use the landscaped vegetation in lower numbers due to the simplicity of the vegetation and the non-native vegetation supports fewer of the resources required by native bird species that native and natural vegetation would provide.

While the HEU will primarily focus development on the urban core of Berkeley, in some areas, native vegetation may be replaced with development and ornamental vegetation. Due to required consistency with General Plan policies EM-28, EM-29, and EM-30, however, this impact would be less than significant.

Development projects under the HEU may include taller buildings in areas along commercial corridors and in the Southside. Overall, redevelopment and infill housing in Berkeley would not substantially affect migratory bird routes, as the area is already built out with existing structures of

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-19
varying heights and mature trees around structures. Nonetheless, there is a risk for new construction with glass windows or facades that birds would not perceive transparent glass as an obstruction and may collide with the glass. This occurs mainly when sky or vegetation is reflected in the glass or they perceive an unobstructed flight path through the glass. As a result, morbidity and mortality due to collision with the buildings is a potential impact. The City is currently developing regulations for bird safety requirements for new construction which are planned to be adopted around the time the proposed HEU is adopted. These regulations will include requiring bird safe glass for new construction or renovations. The most common methods to prevent bird strikes are glass and façade treatments are such as fritted and frosted glass, angled glass, ultra-violet glass, or film. Future development in the HEU planning cycle would be subject to the City’s bird safety requirements at the time of construction. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

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

Threshold 5: Woul d the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? IMPACT BIO-5 I MPLEMENTATION 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.

Future development in Berkeley under the proposed HEU may involve the removal of mature trees during construction. General Plan Policy EM-29 requires the City to maintain and enhance street and park trees to improve the environment and provide habitat. On-going implementation of the policy through site-specific design review and use permits would reduce any potential impact to locally significant trees to a less than significant level.

Under the City of Be rkeley’s Tree Ordinance (BMC No. 6,509-N.S.) t he removal of coast live oak
trees is prohibited for any reason, unless such removal is deemed necessary for public safety by the City Manager. Any Coast Live Oak with a single stem circumference of 18 inches or more or any multi-stemmed oak with an aggregate circumference of 26 inches or more at a distance of four feet from the ground is protected under this ordinance.

Specific development projects implemented under the proposed HEU would be required to adhere to General Plan policies and to the Tree Ordinance. The proposed HEU does not include specific policies or programs that would conflict with or hinder implementation of the City’s Tree Ordinance or other policies or ordinances for protecting biological resources. This impact would be less than significant.

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

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

4.3-20
Threshold 6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact BIO-5 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.

There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans adopted in Berkeley. Therefore, the proposed HEU and future specific development project would not conflict with any such plans. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. c. Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). The geographic scope for cumulative biological resources impacts includes the City of Berkeley. This geographic scope is appropriate for biological resources because it encompasses the mosaic of representative land cover and habitat types (and associated biological resources) affected by the project, including primarily urban, residential, commercial, and industrial development with areas of natural habitats. Development that is considered part of the cumulative analysis includes buildout under the University of California, Berkeley’s LRDP.

Cumulative development in Berkeley may contribute to the loss of foraging and breeding habitat for special-status species; contribute to the decline of special-status species, fragmentation of habitat and isolation of populations, and decrease movement opportunities. Full implementation of the proposed HEU in combination with cumulative development described in Section 3, Environmental Setting, would increase density and intensity of existing land uses. However, the City of Berkeley is highly urbanized and developed which limits the habitat value and potential for presence of sensitive biological resources. Potential impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts associated with biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-1

4.4 Cultural Resources
This section assesses potential impacts on cultural resources related to implementation of the proposed HEU.

4.4.1 Regulatory Setting
This regulatory framework section identifies the federal, state, and local laws, statutes, guidelines, and regulations that govern the identification and treatment of cultural resources as well as the analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources. The lead agency must consider the provisions and requirements of this regulatory framework when rendering decisions on projects that have the potential to affect cultural resources.
a. Federal Regulations
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment" (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 36, 60.2). The NRHP is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP recognizes the quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Per 36 CFR Part 60.4, a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined as follows:

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property

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

4.4-2
Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property
Workmanship: The ph
ysical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
Feel
ing: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
Certain properties are generally considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP, including cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions, relocated structures, or commemorative properties. Additionally, a property must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The National Park Service states that 50 years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop the necessary historical perspective to evaluated significance (National Park Service 1997:41). Properties which are less than 50 years must be determined to have “exceptional importance” to be considered eligible for NRHP listing. b. State Regulations
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR was established in 1992 and codified by PRC §§5024.1 and 4852. The CRHR is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(a)). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(b)). Unlike the NRHP however, the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006). Further, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006). Generally, the California Office of Historic Preservation recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995:2).

Properties are eligible for listing in the CRHR if they meet one of more of the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-3
California Environmental Quality Act
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21804.1 requires lead agencies determine if a project could have a significant impact on historical or unique archaeological resources. As defined in PRC Section 21084.1, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified in a historical resources survey pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. PRC Section 21084.1 also states resources meeting the above criteria are presumed to be historically or cultural significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are automatically listed in the CRHR and are, therefore, historical resources under CEQA. Historical resources may include eligible built environment resources and archaeological resources of the precontact or historic periods.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) provides further guidance on the consideration of archaeological resources. If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it may meet the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as identified in PRC Section 21083.2.

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or 3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical or unique archaeological resource, the impacts of a project on those resources will be less than significant and need not be considered further (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also provides guidance for addressing the potential presence of human remains, including those discovered during the implementation of a project.

According to CEQA, an impact that results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. A substantial adverse change could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR or a local register (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5[b][2][A]).

If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC §21083.2[a], [b]).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 stipulates an EIR shall describe feasible measures to minimize significant adverse impacts. In addition to being fully enforceable, mitigation measures must be completed within a defined time period and be roughly proportional to the impacts of the project.

Generally, a project which is found to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and

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

4.4-4
Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the Standards) is considered to be mitigated below a level of significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 [b][1]). For historical resources of an archaeological nature, lead agencies should also seek to avoid damaging effects where feasible. Preservation in place is the preferred manner to mitigate impacts to archaeological sites; however, data recovery through excavation may be the only option in certain instances (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][3]).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties In accordance with the California Code of Regulations and CEQA Guidelines, a project that has been determined to conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) is generally considered to be a project that will not cause a significant adverse impact to a historical resource (14 California Code of Regulations {CCR} Section 15126.4). If a project meets the Secretary’s Standards, the project can qualify for a potential categorical exemption from CEQA (14 CCR Section 15331).

The goal of the Secretary’s Standards is to outline treatment approaches that allow for the retention of and/or sensitive changes to the distinctive materials and features that lend a historical resource its significance. When changes are carried out according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the historical resource retains its historic integrity and thereby continues to convey the reasons for its significance. The Secretary’s Standards and associated Guidelines (36 CFR 67) are “neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect” cultural resources.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines offer general recommendations for preserving, maintaining, repairing, and replacing historical materials and features, as well as designing new additions or making alterations.

The Secretary’s Standards also provide guidance on new construction adjacent to historic districts and properties, in order to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to integrity as a result of a change in setting. The ten Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation are:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.

Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-5

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic mater
ials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

In order to determine whether a project complies with the Secretary’s Standards, the analysis must consider the “character-defining,” or historically significant, features of the historical resource.

Alterations and replacement of character-defining features over time can impair a historic property’s integrity and result in a loss of historic status. Therefore, to ensure that a historic property remains eligible after implementation of projects, character-defining features should be identified and preserved.

According to Preservation Brief 17, Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character, there is a three-step process to identifying character-defining features. Step 1 involves assessing the physical aspects of the building exterior as a whole, including its location and setting, shape and massing, orientation, roof and roof features, projections, and openings. Step 2 looks at the building more closely—at materials, trim, secondary features, and craftsmanship. Step 3 encompasses the interior, including individual spaces, relations or sequences of spaces (floor plan), surface finishes and materials, exposed structure, and interior features and details.

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

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

As used here, “public lands” means lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with PRC § 5097.5 for their activities, including construction and maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.

If a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC, Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).

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

4.4-6
Codes Governing Human Remains
The disposition of human remains is governed by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 and falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). If human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98, will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal. c. Local Regulations
City of Berkeley General Plan (2001)
The Urban Design and Preservation Element of the City’s General Plan, approved in 2001, contains the following goals and policies related to cultural resources and relevant to the current project:

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

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

Policy UD-3 Regulation of Neighborhood Character. Use regulations to protect the character of neighborhoods and districts, and respect the particular conditions of each area.

Policy UD-5 Architectural Features. Encourage, and where appropriate require, retention of ornaments and other architecturally interesting features in the course of seismic retrofit and other rehabilitation work.

Policy UD-6 Adaptive Reuse. Encourage adaptive reuse of historically or architecturally interesting buildings in cases where the new use would be compatible with the structure itself and the surrounding area.

Policy UD-8 Public Works Projects. In public works projects, seek to preserve desirable historic elements such as ornamental sidewalk features, lampposts, and benches.

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

Policy UD-16 Context. The design and scale of new or remodeled buildings should respect the built environment in the area, particularly where the character of the built environment is largely defined by the aggregation of historically and architecturally significant buildings.

Policy UD-17 Design Elements. In relating a new design to the surrounding area, the factors to consider should include height, massing, materials, color, and detailing or ornament.

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

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-7
Policy UD-24 Area Character. Regulate new construction and alterations to ensure that they are truly compatible with and, where feasible, reinforce the desirable design characteristics of the particular area they are in.

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

Policy UD-38 Tourism. As an economic development strategy, promote the city’s cultural and architectural heritage.

City of Berkeley Municipal Code
The City of Berkeley’s Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 3.24 Landmarks Preservation Commission provides for the identification, designation, and preservation of historic structures and structures with cultural value. In accordance with Chapter 3.24, the Landmarks Preservation Commission is given regulatory powers over the City’s designated historic properties (including Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts). Pursuant to Section 3.24.210, Upon receipt of any application for a permit to carry out any construction, alteration or demolition on a landmark site, in an historic district or on a structure of merit site, or on an initiated landmark site, in an initiated historic district or on an initiated structure of merit site, the Department of Planning and Community Development shall, unless the structure or feature concerned has been declared unsafe or dangerous pursuant to Section 3.24.280 of this chapter, promptly forward such permit application to the commission for review.

In accordance with Section 3.24.260, the Landmarks Preservation Commission may grant approval of permit applications for physical changes to Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts under the following circumstances. As described in Section 3.24.260(C), permit applications for construction, alteration, or repair of designated resources are subject to the following standards:
a. For applications relating to landmark sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the landmark and, where specified in the designation for a publicly owned landmark, its major interior architectural features; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site, as viewed both in themselves and in their setting.
b. For applications relating to property in historic districts, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the subject property or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including facade, setback and height; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. The proposed work shall also conform to such further standards as may be embodied in the designation of the historic district. c. For applications relating to structure of merit sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the architectural features if architectural merit is the basis for designation; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special cultural, educational or historical interest or value if that is the basis for designation.

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

4.4-8
In addition, for permit applications for alteration or demolitions of designated landmarks, historic districts, and structures of merit, Section 3.24.260(C)(2) sets forth the provisions for Landmarks Preservation Commission review and consideration of extenuating circumstances, such as technical and economic feasibility.

Chapter 3.24 also defines the criteria for historic resource designation and procedures for the treatment of historic resources. Section 3.24.110, “Landmarks, historic districts, and structures of merit—Designation—Criteria for consideration,” establishes the criteria when considering structures, sites, and areas for landmark or structure of merit designation The criteria for designating a City landmark are as follows:

Architectural merit:
a. Property that is the first, last, only or most significant architectural property of its type in the region
b. Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works of the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer or master builder c. Architectural examples worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric
Cultural value: Structures, sites and areas associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social and economic developments of the City Educational value: Structures worth preserving for their usefulness as an educational force Historic value: Preservation and enhancement of structures, sites and areas that embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County/California/United States Historic property: Any property listed in the NRHP
The criteria for designating a structure of merit are as follows:

General criteria shall be architectural merit and/or cultural, educational, or historic interest or value. If upon assessment of a structure, the commission finds that the structure does not currently meet the criteria as set out for a landmark, but it is worthy of preservation as part of a neighborhood, a block or a street frontage, or as part of a group of buildings which includes landmarks, that structure may be designated a structure of merit.

Specific criteria include, but are not limited to one or more of the following:
a. The age of the structure is contemporary with (1) a designated landmark within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings, or (2) an historic period or event of significance to the City, or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings.
b. The structure is compatible in size, scale, style, materials or design with a designated landmark structure within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings. c. The structure is a good example of architectural design. d. The structure has historical significance to the City and/or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings. (Ord. 5686-NS § 1 (part), 1985: Ord. 4694-NS §

3.1, 1974)

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-9
Municipal Code General Provisions
Section 23.326.070.C of Berkeley’s zoning code includes the following requirements for projects that would involve demolition of non-residential buildings (used for commercial, manufacturing, community institutional or other non-residential uses):

Any application for a Use Permit or AUP to demolish a non-residential building or structure which is 40 or more years old shall be forwarded to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) for review prior to consideration of the Use Permit or AUP.

The LPC may initiate a landmark or structure-of-merit designation or may choose solely to forward to the Board its comments on the application. The Board shall consider the recommendations of the LPC in considering its action on the application.

LPC input and comments on proposed demolitions subject to Section 23.326.070.C are advisory in nature to the Zoning Adjustments Board. Each LPC agenda lists the address and associated permit application number for all projects involving a request to demolish a building more than 40 years old for the LPC to review prior to any staff recommendation or action.

City of Berkeley Permit Application Requirements
While not part of the City’s adopted Municipal Code, Berkeley’s Zoning Project Application process includes a requirement for historic resources evaluation for certain projects involving properties over 40 years of age. Permit applications are required to include a set of State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms, documenting a Historic Resource Evaluation, in the following project scenarios:

1. Demolition of a non-residential building, more than 40 years old, subject to referral to the Landmarks Preservation Commission in accordance with BMC Section 23.326.070.C;

2. Demolition/Substantial Change of any building more than 40 years old subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

The Zoning Project Application Submittal Requirements include the following information on the evaluation:

Evaluation(s) to include references to development history documentation (including but not limited to photographs, building permits, Sanborn maps, and directory listings); completed by a qualified historian, architectural historian or historic architect. Provide supplemental information in accordance with the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance criteria (BMC Section

3.24.110).

The Environmental Review Officer may waive this requirement for residential addition and alteration proposals after determining that the project complies with preservation standards and environmental practices OR that qualified sources other than an HRE can provide the relevant information.

4.4.2 Cultural Resources Setting
Berkeley retains a wide variety of prehistoric and historic-era cultural resources that are of benefit to the community as a tangible record of the City’s past and identity. This section provides an overview of the Berkeley’s cultural resources setting from prehistoric/ethnographic times through the historic era and present day.

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

4.4-10

4.4.2.1 Prehistory
Data from the early work of N.C. Nelson in the San Francisco Bay, delta, and inland sites illuminated regional archaeological sequences and allowed the development of the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS) (Nelson 1909; Moratto 1984). The CCTS outlines three main chronological periods (or ‘horizons’) for the Sacramento Delta and San Francisco Bay areas – Early, Middle, and Late,. summarized here following Hylkema’s (2002) and Milliken et al.’s (2007) approaches.

Given the rise in sea levels in the Middle Holocene, the relatively recent formation of San Francisco Bay, and the presence of constant alluviation in low-lying parts of the Bay Area, most evidence of the earliest human habitation in the area is likely to be underwater or deeply buried. Therefore, most evidence for the Middle Holocene comes from inland sites, with the earliest dating from ca. 8000 BC at Los Vaqueros Reservoir in eastern Contra Costa County (Meyer and Rosenthal 1997), and the Metcalf Creek site (CA-SCl-178) in Morgan Hill (Hildebrandt 1983; Milliken et al. 2007:114; Jones et al. 2007:130).

The Early Period (4000-500 BC) in the San Francisco Bay Area shows the emergence of the “Windmiller pattern” of material culture, characterized by an advancement in technological skills and devices, an emphasis on hunting and trading, and burial and ceremonial practices as evidenced by large stemmed and concave-base obsidian projectile points, rectangular Olivella beads, charmstones, extended burials facing toward the west, and the replacement of milling slabs with mortars and pestles. Semi-sedentary land use, shell mound development, and evidence of regional trade are typical in some areas of the Bay while a lack of high-density shell deposits suggests only a preferential use of terrestrial resources. This cultural pattern appears earlier in the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys, suggesting an influx of traditions or people from those areas into the Bay Area at some point during the period. In the East Bay, mortars and pestles first appear after 4000 BC and are ubiquitous by 1500 BC (Milliken et al. 2007:115; Moratto 1984: 277).

The Lower Middle Period (or Berkeley Pattern, 500 BC to 430 AD) is marked by major cultural disruptions. Changes included a move away from Olivella beads for new bead types much lower frequency of projectile points, the introduction of flexed burials instead of extended burials, and the introduction of decorative objects that may represent religious or cosmological beliefs. The period also saw the increased use of marine resources as seen through a developed network of large shellmounds (Lightfoot 1997; Moratto 1984:283; Lightfoot and Luby 2002; Leventhal 1993).

The Late Period (1050-1550 AD) is characterized by significant social transformations, an increase in social complexity and trade relations, greater sedentism, the appearance of cremation of high- status individuals, and the unification of ceremonial systems around the Bay Area. Changes in material culture include the introduction of the bow and arrow (including arrow-sized projectile points), harpoons, tubular tobacco pipe, clamshell disc beads, and new forms of ornamentation (Milliken et al. 2007:117).

Shellmounds are prevalent within the Alameda County (Nelson 1909). Approximately four miles southwest of the Southside, the Emeryville shellmound was excavated in 1902, 1924, (Moratto 1984:227-230). Another important site, the West Berkeley shellmound (Ala-307), was excavated in 1902 and in the mid-1950s before its destruction, providing an extensive faunal inventory and information on species change as well as important temporal and comparative data that has helped construct a regional archaeological sequence (Wallace and Lathrop 1975; Follett 1975; Greengo 1975; Moratto 1984:260-261).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-11
Ethnography and Ethnohistory
The Huchiun people lived in present-day Berkeley when Spanish soldiers and missionaries arrived in the Bay Area. Huchiun territory extended “along the East Bay shore from Temescal Creek…north to the lower San Pablo and Wildcat Creek drainages in the present area of Richmond” (Milliken 1995:243). The names of two Huchiun villages – Genau and Junchaque – are known from Mission records, but their exact location is unknown (Milliken 1995:243). Huchiun presence near Temescal Creek, is attested in its Mexican-era name, “Arroyo del Temescal o Los Juchiyunes.” The Huchiun have been one of the groups of the Ohlone people who have lived along the east, west, and south shores of San Francisco Bay, and in the Santa Cruz Mountains, Salinas Valley, and Monterey Bay area. During this period, the Ohlone utilized a wide range of resources in a very favorable environment. Those populations living adjacent to the great bays of the region relied heavily on shellfish and aquatic animals for food. In the interior plant foods like acorns were gathered and stored in great quantity. Large game like deer, elk, and antelope were hunted. Game birds, waterfowl, fish, and shellfish were other major food sources that thrived in the nearby sloughs and marshes of San Francisco Bay (Milliken 1995:16-18; Levy 1978).

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

The Huchiun spoke the Chochenyo dialect of the Ohlone language, which was spoken along the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay prior to 1770. Ohlone/Costanoan is a branch of the Yok-Utian subfamily of the Penutian languages, which are spoken along the Pacific Coast from Central California to southeast Alaska. Penutian speakers seem to have entered central California from the northern Great Basin around 4000-4500 years ago and arrived in the San Francisco Bay Area about 1500 years ago, displacing speakers of Hokan languages (Golla 2007:74), which also relates to the spread of the Windmiller pattern (Moratto 1984:553; Levy 1978:486).

4.4.2.2 Post Contact History
History
Post-Contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), Mexican Period (1822–1848), and American Period (1848–present). Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican American War, signals the beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States.

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

4.4-12
Spanish Period (1769 – 1822)
Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of California between the mid-1500s and mid-1700s. Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in 1542 led the first European expedition to observe what was known by the Spanish as Alta (upper) California. For more than 200 years, Cabrillo and other Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the Alta California coast and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements (Bean 1968; Rolle 2003). The Spanish crown laid claim to Alta California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno (Bancroft 1885; Gumprecht 1999).

During this period, Berkeley appears to have been sparsely inhabited by this time with the main Huchiun villages located near Richmond. By the 18th century, Spain developed a three-pronged approach to secure its hold on the territory and counter other foreign explorers. The Spanish established military forts known as presidios, as well as missions and pueblos (towns) throughout Alta California. The 1769 overland expedition by Captain Gaspár de Portolá marks the beginning of California’s Historic period, occurring just after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas. Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California in 1769. Franciscan Father Junípero Serra also founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá that same year, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823.

Mission San Francisco was founded in 1776. Few Huchiun people moved to the mission during the initial years, but by 1794 had migrated en masse to the mission. Construction of missions and associated presidios was a major emphasis during the Spanish Period in California to convert the Native American population to Christianity and to integrate them into communal enterprise. in 1794 187 Huchiuns were baptized at Mission San Francisco. In the following years, native people suffered from disease, dietary deficiency, and conflict that resulted in a nearly 80 percent population decline by 1832.

Spain began issuing land grants in 1784, typically to retiring soldiers, although the grantees were only permitted to inhabit and work the land. The land titles technically remained property of the Spanish king (Livingston 1914).

Mexican Period (1822 – 1848)
Several factors limited colonial settlement within Alta California to a minimum, including the threat of foreign invasion, political discord, and unrest among the indigenous population. After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, the Viceroyalty of New Spain (Mexico and California territory) won independence from Spain in 1821. Shortly thereafter New Spain was dissolved and the Mexican Empire was established. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants (Dallas 1955).

Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos, or large land areas used largely for raising cattle or livestock. Commonly, former soldiers and well-connected Mexican families were the recipients of these land grants, which now included the title to the land.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-13
Berkeley was within Rancho San Antonio, which was granted to Luis Maria Peralta in 1820. Peralta had come to California in 1776 with the Anza expedition. The rancho stretched for more than 43,000 acres, including the area from present-day Albany in the north to San Leandro Creek in the south. In 1842, Luis Peralta divided the ranch among his sons, with José Domingo receiving what is today Berkeley and Albany and José Vicente receiving what is now Emeryville, North and West Oakland, and Piedmont.

During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848 ), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The number of non-nati
ve inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities.

In 1849 the area rapidly developed as a result of the Gold Rush. The Peralta family was plagued by squatters who overran rancho land, sometimes violently. Domingo Peralta sought to have his property confirmed in United States courts, and was burdened by legal proceedings to prove his ownership and sold portions of his land to raise money for legal fees.

American Period (1848 – Present)
The United States went to war with Mexico in 1846. The war ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ushering California into its American Period.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, gold discovered in and along the American River in 1849 ushered in the Gold Rush. Immigrants flowed to the area and by the end of 1849, San Francisco’s population grew from about 500 to 25,000 residents. California officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as US territories (Waugh 2003). With the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides but also as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from southern to northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom.

Local History
By the early 1860s, two noteworthy events catalyzed new settlement and expansion in the Berkeley area - the installation of telegraph lines along Telegraph and Claremont Avenues and the establishment of the College of California in 1866 (present-day UC Berkeley).

During this period, residences and industries grew around the wharf area that was known as “Ocean View”. In April 1878, the people of “Ocean View”, the area surrounding university campus, and local farmers were granted incorporation as the Town of Berkeley. Following incorporation, economic growth expanded rapidly with the establishment of mills, industrial plants, and retail operations.

Commercial corridors began to grow in areas adjacent to the university, and along San Pablo Avenue. In 1872, the City’s first post office opened. The area surrounding the City remained largely agricultural.

The establishment of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1877 provided the means for easier transport of goods. By 1878, Southern Pacific had established a line from Oakland through to North Berkeley by way of Shattuck Avenue, and a downtown commercial district soon followed. As a result, the agricultural areas began to be developed for residential and commercial uses for the growing city.

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

4.4-14
By about 1888, an interurban electric trolley line as well as a ferry service to San Francisco helped connect the emerging town with nearby population and employment centers, further spurring population and construction expansion.

Into the twentieth cent ury, Berkeley expanded ste
adily, through the meteoric growth of the UC
Berkeley, the downtown commercial corridor, as well as industrial development along the city periphery. Residential expansion grew, as well, with neighborhoods into the Berkeley flats. The 1906 Earthquake hastened Berkeley’s growth when thousands of displaced San Francisco residents became permanent Berkeley residents and a corresponding construction boom followed.

At the same time, enrollment at UC Berkeley more than tripled between 1900 and 1920, growing from 2,000 to over 7,000. In the 1910s, plans began for Berkeley’s Civic Center. As expansion continued through the 1920s, the City adopted a comprehensive ordinance creating land-use zones throughout Berkeley, to manage the rapid construction that was transforming Berkeley. The economic collapse of the Great Depression signaled a shift in land use, as well, with one result being the adaptation of large-scale, single-family residences for multi-family use.

After the slowdown of the Great Depression, Berkeley experienced rapid expansion during and after World War II. The population grew from approximately 85,000 in 1940 to nearly 115,000 by 1950, with much of this increase due to defense-related industries, including shipyard operations, and military personnel stationed in and around Berkeley. The campus served as a training ground for Navy and Army officers as well as housing and barracks spaces.

Berkeley’s growth was further reflected in surging enrollments at the University, which grew from 7,700 in 1944 to 21,000 in 1946. The University’s growth contributed to Berkeley’s emergence as important intellectual center. Much of Berkeley’s postwar growth mirrors that of neighboring cities, with the postwar housing shortage (exacerbated by the population growth at UC Berkeley), the era of redevelopment, and suburban growth changing the dynamics and use patterns in the city’s historic core.

In the postwar period, one of the eras that distinguished Berkeley, however, began in the 1960s and extended through the 1970s with the rise of the Civil Rights and Free Speech movements, the anti- war movement, and the flowering of a broad, influential counter-culture movement. With the leadership and participation of the younger generation, these movements came to define Berkeley’s independent, progressive culture.

4.4.3 Known Historical Resources
To identify known historical resources within the housing inventory sites, the background research for this study included a review of the NRHP, CRHR, and the California Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), and the City’s listings of designated and previously evaluated resources. The review identified three housing inventory sites which are known as of the date of this report to contain properties which are listed in, or eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or designated City of Berkeley Landmarks, and therefore are considered historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a).

One building, 2154 University Avenue (APN 57-2034-12), is a listed City of Berkeley Landmark. A review of the BERD included 11 properties that are listed in the housing inventory sites and have previously been surveyed for their potential historical significance. Of those properties surveyed, one property (2400 San Pablo Avenue) received a Status Code of 3S, or an individual property that appears eligible for the NRHP through survey evaluation and one property (2120 Shattuck Avenue) received a California Historical Resources Status Code of 2S2, or an individual property determined

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-15
to be eligible for listing in the NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 process and listed in the CRHR. In addition, background research for this study also identified four local historic districts; however, no housing inventory sites are located within a local historic district.

A review of parcel data for the properties c omprising the housi ng inventory sites, including a total of
464 properties, found an additional 198 properties which have not been subject to previous historical resources evaluation, but which currently meet the 40-year age threshold generally triggering the need for evaluation in the City of Berkeley. An additional 10 properties will become 40 years of age during the 2022-2031 planning period of the Housing Element Update. Pending further analysis there is a potential for these previously unevaluated properties to qualify as historical resources pursuant to CEQA. For the purposes of this study, these properties are considered potential historical resources. See Appendix C for a full list of listed and age-eligible properties.

4.4.4 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The methodologies and significance thresholds employed for the cultural resources impact analyses are described below and in the Regulatory Setting, above.

In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact to Cultural Resources is considered significant if it can be demonstrated that the project would:

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;

2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; or

3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

The significance of an archaeological deposit and subsequently the significance of an impact are determined by the criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines, as provided in the Regulatory Setting.

If an archaeological resource does not meet either the historical resource or the more specific “unique archaeological resource” definition, impacts do not need to be mitigated [13 PRC 15064.5 (e)]. Where the significance of a site is unknown, it is presumed to be significant for the purpose of the EIR investigation.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
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.

Reasonably foreseeable development facilitated by the Housing Element Update would result in a significant impact on historical resources if such activities would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, which, as defined above, would include the demolition or substantial alteration of a resource such that it would no longer be able to convey its significance.

Historical resources include properties eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR or as a local landmark

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

4.4-16
or structure of merit. Pursuant to PRC Section 15064.5, “[s]ubstantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion or eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR or account for its inclusion in a local register.

Reasonably foreseeable development facilitated by the project, incl uding the proposed expansion of
zoning capacity for additional units in the Southside Plan Area and the middle housing rezoning districts, could impact historical resources through demolition and construction activities associated with HEU implementation. The City of Berkeley has adopted regulations that would apply to future development facilitated by the project. As described in Section 4.4.1, Regulatory Setting, the City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission ordinance provides procedures for the local designation of historical resources. The ordinance also includes a provision for a permit review which allows Landmarks Preservation Commission to review and approve any construction, alteration, or demolition of a designated landmark, buildings in designated historic districts, and structures of merit.

Additionally, 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. In most cases, mitigation of impacts to historical resources would be carried out though the existing procedures of the permit review process. These regulations are intended to reduce impacts to historical resources by ensuring that proposed changes to buildings do not negatively impact the resource through encouraging the preservation and maintenance of historical materials and ensuring work performed is consistent with the resource’s historical character.

The City’s regulations would mitigate impacts to historical resources to a substantial extent.

However, mitigation is necessary to identify potential historical resources which have not yet been subject to evaluation or would not be subject to the City’s permit review or zoning application requirements. For development projects involving properties 40 years of age or older, that have not been previously listed or recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or a City of Berkeley Designated Landmark or Structure of Merit, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that an evaluation is completed to determine if a property would qualify as a historical resource. If a historical resource evaluation finds a property eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or as a City of Berkeley Landmark, it would be subject to procedures regulating permit review. Although these procedures may mitigate impacts to the maximum extent feasible, they may allow, in some cases, for the demolition of a resource or other alterations that materially impair the features that convey its historical significance.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-17
CUL-1 Historic Context Statement, Cultural Resources Survey and Designations During the period of this Housing Element, th e City shou ld 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 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.

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

4.4-18
Significance After Mitigation
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.

Threshold 2: Wou
ld the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
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.

Although the City does not maintain an inventory of archaeological sites and the California Historical Resources Information System was not consulted for this analysis, it is understood that archaeological sites are present in Berkeley and the surrounding areas. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, a high potential for Native American cultural resources exists within the City limits.

Therefore, the potential to encounter unidentified resources in the City and on residential inventory sites noted in the Housing Element Update properties is considered high. Undeveloped properties in the Housing Element Update inventory have a higher probability of containing previously unidentified archaeological resources given the probable lack of previous ground-disturbing activities on those properties. However, ground-disturbance into native soils on any Housing Element Update property could contain previously unknown prehistoric or historic-period resources. Therefore, individual development projects under the proposed project that would involve ground disturbance activities would have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources, especially if they occur below the existing road base or in less disturbed sediments.

Consequently, impacts would be potentially significant and mitigation would be required for projects involving ground disturbance activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading. However, the City of Berkeley implements the following Standard Condition of Approval for projects in Berkeley:

Archaeological Resources (Ongoing
throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f), “provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” should be instituted.

Therefore:

A. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant and/or lead agency shall consult with a qualified archaeologist, historian or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-19
B. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project proponent and/or lead agency and the qualified professional would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City of Berkeley. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by the qualified professional according to current professional standards.

C. In considering any suggested measure proposed by the qualified professional, the project app
licant shall determine whether avoidance is necessary or feasible in light of factors such as the uniqueness of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.

D. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation measures for cultural resources is carried out.

E. If significant materials are recovered, the qualified professional shall prepare a report on the findings for submittal to the Northwest Information Center.

Adherence to this Stand
ard Condition of Approval would ensure that development carried out under the Housing Element would have a less than significant impact from potential adverse changes in the significance of archeological resources.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required with required adherence to existing regulations such a California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and City of Berkeley Standard Conditions of Approval.

Threshold 3: Woul d the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
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.

Human burials outside of formal cemeteries can occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. While no known burial sites have been identified in the city, excavations during construction activities could have the potential to disturb these resources, which could include Native American burial sites. Although it is unlikely that human remains are present, all Housing Element Update properties have at least the possibility of containing previously unidentified human remains.

Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treat
ment in PRC Section 5097. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protect them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. They also include established procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. PRC Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the NAHC to resolve any related disputes. In addition, the City requires the following Stand ard Condition of Approval for projects in
Berkeley:

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

4.4-20
Human Remains (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work shall immediately halt and the Alameda County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, and following the procedures and protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all excavation and site preparation activities shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find until appropriate arrangements are made. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determination of significance and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously.

Further, all development projects are subject to State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 which states that, if human remains are unearthed, no further disturbance can occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to the PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and make recommendations to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access. With adherence to City’s standard condition of approval and existing regulations, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required with required adherence to existing State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and City of Berkeley Standard Conditions of Approval.
c. Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]).

Development pursuant to the Housing Element Update and the 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 noted above in Impact CUL-1, 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.

In addition, there is a potential for unknown and previously undisturbed archaeological resources and human remains to be encountered during cumulative development. Generally, impacts to cultural resources are site specific and would not result in overall cumulative impacts. Future development projects would be reviewed by the City pursuant to CEQA to identify potential impacts to cultural resources on a project-by-project basis. While there is the potential for significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the City of Berkeley, it is anticipated that potential

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-21
impacts associated with individual development projects would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to the Standard Conditions of Approval outlined above, City policies, and local and state regulations regarding the protection of such resources. With compliance with the existing policies and regulations, future development would be required to avoid or mitigate the loss of these resources. Therefore, significant cumulative archaeological resources and human remains impacts would not occur.

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

4.4-22

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-1

4.5 Energy
This section evaluates impacts to energy, including the potential wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, associated with the implementation of the proposed HEU.

4.5.1 Setting
Energy relates directly to environmental quality because energy use can adversely affect air quality and other natural resources. Fossil fuels are burned to create electricity to power homes and vehicles, which creates heat. Transportation energy use relates to the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks, and the availability and use of public transportation, the choice of different travel modes (auto, carpool, and public transit), and the miles traveled by these modes. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of infrastructure also consume energy, as do residential land uses, typically in the form of natural gas and electricity.

Energy Supply
Natural gas-fired generation has dominated electricity production in California for many years.

However, in 2019, the two largest sources of energy produced in California were crude oil at approximately 920.1 trillion British thermal units (Btu), and renewable energy sources at approximately 1,139.6 trillion Btu, while natural gas production was 220.8 trillion Btu and nuclear electric power was 168.8 trillion Btu. (Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2021a). Berkeley contains no oil/gas fields. The nearest one is located in Orinda, approximately 2 miles east of Berkeley, but it has no active wells (California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources 2021).

Energy Consumption and Sources
Total energy consumption in the United States in 2020 was approximately 104.53 quadrillion Btu (EIA 2021b). In 2020, petroleum provided approximately 35 percent of that energy, with other sources of energy coming from natural gas (approximately 34 percent), coal (approximately 10 percent), total renewable sources (approximately 12 percent), and nuclear power (approximately 9 percent). On a per capita basis in 2019, California was ranked the second lowest state in terms of total energy consumption (197.8 million Btu [MMBtu] per person), or about 35 percent less than the U.S. average per capita consumption of 305.4 MMBtu per person (EIA 2019a).

Alameda County as a whole consumed approximately 10,531,297 MWh of energy in 2021. Roughly 718,050 MWh of electricity was produced from renewable sources (Find Energy 2022).

Electricity
Most of the electricity generated in California is from natural gas-fired power plants, which provided approximately 48 percent of total electricity generated in 2020. In 2020, California used 272,575 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity and produced 70 percent (190,913 GWh) of the electricity it used and imported the rest from outside the state (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2020).

Alameda County consumed approximately 10,247 GWh of electricity in 2020 from residential and non-residential uses (CEC 2022a).

Table 4.5-1 illustrates the County’s 2020 electricity consumption in comparison to statewide consumption and displays the County’s equivalent per capita energy consumption from its

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

4.5-2
electricity demand. With a population of 1,663,114 in 2020 (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2021), Alameda County’s 2020 per capita electricity consumption was approximately 6,161 kWh, or approximately 21 million Btu.

Table 4.5-1 2020 Annual Electricity Consumption
Energy Type
Alameda County
(GWh)
California
(GWh)
Proportion of
Statewide
Consumption
County per Capita
Consumption
(kWh)
County per Capita
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Electricity 10,247 272,575 3.8% 6,161 21
Source: CEC 2022a, DOF 2021
East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) supplies electricity to Berkeley using transmission infrastructure operated and maintained by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). EBCE is a community-governed, local power supplier that provides cleaner electricity to Alameda County residents and businesses. As of 2021, EBCE’s base plan (Bright Choice) consisted of 40 percent eligible renewable energy resources (EBCE 2021). EBCE offers 100 percent renewable energy services to member cities, and both residential and commercial customers in Berkeley will be placed in the Renewable 100 Plan starting March 2022 and October 2022, respectively (EBCE 2021). However, customers have the option to opt out of the Renewable 100 program and enroll in the Bright Choice Program which would be supplied by 40 percent renewable energy or receive electricity from PG&E. PG&E is one of the nation’s largest electric and gas utility companies, and it maintains 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines (PG&E 2021).

According to PG&E’s 2018 Integrated Resource Plan, PG&E anticipates meeting a 2030 energy load demand of between 36,922 gigawatt-hours and 37,370 gigawatt-hours (PG&E 2018). In conjunction with the utility companies, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is involved in energy conservation programs.

CPUC and CEC are constantly assessing population growth, electricity demand, and reliability. The CEC is tasked with conducting assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand and prices (CEC 2022b). The CEC uses these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety (Public Resources Code Section 25301[a]).

Natural Gas
California relies on out-of-state natural gas imports for nearly 90 percent of its natural gas supply (CEC 2022c). Alameda County as a whole consumed approximately 366 million therms of natural gas in 2020 in both residential and non-residential uses (CEC 2022d). Table 4.5-2 illustrates the County’s 2020 natural gas consumption in comparison to statewide consumption and displays the County’s equivalent per capita energy consumption from its natural gas demand. With a population of 1,663,114 in 2020 (DOF 2021), Alameda County’s 2020 per capita natural gas consumption was approximately 220 therms, or approximately 20 million Btu.