Berkeley City Council
November 21, 2023

Introduction

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 1 1 Introduction
This document is an Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse #2022010331) (hereinafter referred to as the “2023 EIR”) which was prepared for the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (“HEU”). The 2023 EIR was certified, the mitigation measures in the EIR were adopted and incorporated into the HEU, and the HEU was approved by the City of Berkeley (“City”) on January 18, 2023. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15150, an addendum “may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public.” Accordingly, the environmental analysis and mitigation measures identified in the 2023 EIR are incorporated by reference herein. Where the analysis in this Addendum relies upon the analysis of the 2023 EIR it will be appropriately summarized and referenced. The 2023 EIR is available for public review at:

City of Berkeley
Land Use Planning Division
1947 Center Street, Second Floor
Berkeley, California 94704
The document is also available on the City’s website: https://berkeleyca.gov/construction- development/land-use-development/general-plan-and-area-plans/housing-element-update.

The proposed Southside Zoning Implementation Project (hereinafter referred to as “the proposed project” would involve changes to the approved HEU that was analyzed in the 2023 EIR in order to implement zoning text and map amendments, and associated General Plan text and map amendments for the Southside Area (hereinafter referred to as “Southside Area”) as called for in HEU Program 27, and to establish minimum density standards as called for in HEU Program 33.

Therefore, some modifications and additions are necessary to the 2023 EIR, but as discussed in this Addendum no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required.

Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines1, a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15612 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Under Section 15162 (a), where an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that substantial changes are proposed in the project, substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, or new information of substantial importance, any of which require major revisions of the previous EIR due to one or more new significant impacts not discussed in the previous EIR, or a substantially increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts.

Regarding preparation of an addendum to an EIR, Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
▪ The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (Section 15164(a)). ▪ An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR (Section 15164(c)).

1 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

2 ▪ The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project (Section 15164(d)).
▪ A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence (Section 15164(e))
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines. It describes the changes in the HEU that constitute the proposed project, and compares the impacts of those changes to the impacts of the HEU identified in the 2023 EIR. The analysis in this Addendum concludes that the proposed project does not require preparation of a subsequent EIR.

Background

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 3 2 Background
This section provides an overview of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and the analysis of the HEU in the 2023 EIR to provide context for this Addendum.

2.1 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Project
Description
The 2023-2031 HEU project amended the City’s General Plan by replacing the 5th Cycle Housing Element with the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element, and amended other portions of the City’s General Plan as needed for consistency and HEU implementation. The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2023-2031 planning period was 8,934 units, distributed among four income categories (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate). In order to meet the RHNA, the City assessed the capacity to provide sites to meet the RHNA in three categories: Likely Sites, Pipeline Sites, and Opportunity Sites. The Likely Sites, Pipeline Sites and Opportunity Sites together constituted the 2023 EIR Sites Inventory, providing for a total of 15,153 units, which includes 800 accessory dwelling units (ADUs).2
The City determined, based on the sites inventory, that rezoning was not needed to meet the RHNA.

However, based on development activity the City determined that zoning alone would not deliver the level of deed-restricted affordable housing and economic and geographic diversity that the HEU aimed to achieve. Therefore, implementation programs and zoning policies were included in the HEU to encourage additional housing, particularly affordable housing that supports a diversity of income levels and household types. The implementation programs included in the HEU include a program to promote middle- and moderate-incoming housing and a program to facilitate additional housing development in the Southside Area; these are summarized below.

Middle Housing Rezoning
The Middle Housing Rezoning implementation program was designed to increase density in Single- Family Residential (R-1), Limited Two-Family Residential (R-1A), Restricted Two-Family Residential (R-2), Restricted Multiple-Family Residential (R-2A), and Mixed Use-Residential (MU-R) zoning districts based on the State’s adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 9, and to promote housing for middle- and moderate-income households. Based on the proposed density changes, the 2023 EIR analyzed 770 additional units distributed throughout the R-1 districts and 975 additional units distributed throughout the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts, for a total of 1,745 middle housing units in the 2023-2031 period.

Southside Zoning Modification Project
The Southside Zoning Modification Project included amendments aimed at facilitating additional housing compared to what would be allowed under the existing zoning within the Southside Plan Area. The zoning modifications and a HEU program for local density bonus were intended to increase housing capacity and production to better meet student housing demand in the Southside

2 Likely Sites included 4,685 units with an estimated 800 ADUs; Pipeline Sites included 2,415 units; and Opportunity Sites included 8,053 units.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

4 Area 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. The 2023 EIR assumed rezoning would allow for 1,000 more units in the portions of the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3), Residential High Density Subarea (R-S), Residential Mixed Use Subarea (R-SMU), and Telegraph Avenue Commercial (C-T) districts within the Southside Area for the 2023-2031 period. 2023 EIR Buildout
Table 1 summarizes the buildout analyzed in the 2023 EIR, which is based on the 2023 EIR Sites Inventory of 15,153 units, an additional 1,200 units at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, and projections for implementation programs - Middle Housing Rezoning and the Southside Zoning Modification Project - totaling 2,745 units. Overall, the 2023 EIR assumed that implementation of the HEU zoning changes and other programs could facilitate up to 19,098 units additional units in Berkeley.

Table 1 2023 EIR Projected Buildout
Total New Units
EIR Sites Inventory
Likely Sites 4,685
Pipeline Sites 2,415
Opportunity Sites 8,053
Implementation Programs
Middle Housing Rezoning 1,745
Southside Zoning Modification Project 1,000
Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations 1,200
Overall EIR Growth Assumption 19,098
Source: City of Berkeley 2023a

2.2 2023-2031 Housing Element Update EIR
The 2023 EIR evaluated potential environmental consequences associated with the HEU for all of the environmental issue areas identified in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist. The 2023 EIR found the following impacts to be less than significant without mitigation: aesthetics, biological resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems.

The 2023 EIR found that the following impacts would have less-than-significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR:
▪ Air Quality
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Geology and Soils
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Wildfire

Background

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 5 Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (Construction Emissions Reduction Measures), Mitigation Measure AQ-2 (Construction Health Risk Assessment), and Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (TAC Exposure Reduction Building Measures) would reduce air quality impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Protection of Paleontological Resources) would reduce geology and soils impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 (Tribal Cultural Monitoring) would reduce tribal cultural resources impacts to less than significant levels.

The 2023 EIR found that the HEU would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to cultural resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (Historic Context Statement, Cultural Resources Survey and Designations) and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (Historic Resources Discretionary Review) would reduce cultural resources impacts to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with implementation of mitigation measures, existing historical resources and historical resources eligible for listing could still be materially impaired by future development that would be carried out under the HEU. Therefore, cultural resources impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The 2023 EIR also found that the HEU would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise. Although future development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, which would reduce construction noise impacts to the extent feasible, larger developments involving lengthier construction durations with the use of larger, heavy-duty equipment could still exceed the City’s standards for stationary equipment in both multi-family residential and commercial zones. Furthermore, construction noise levels could exceed the City’s standards at multiple sites where the HEU would facilitate development in Berkeley. Therefore, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The 2023 EIR also found that the HEU would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to wildfire. Adherence to City regulations and procedures and implementation of Mitigation Measure W-1 (Undergrounding of Power Drops in the VHFHSZs) would reduce the risk of fire during construction, but not to a less-than-significant level. That is because, for some development projects, even with implementation of wildfire prevention measures, impacts may result from the potential for unusual site-specific or road conditions, project characteristics, and the general ongoing fire risk in Berkeley Hills. Therefore, wildfire impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

6 This page intentionally left blank.

Project Description

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 7 3 Project Description

3.1 Project Location and Existing Conditions
The project location is the “Southside Area” of the City of Berkeley, as defined in the 2011 Southside Plan (City of Berkeley 2011) and shown in Figure 1 (Regional Location) and Figure 2 (Southside Area Location). The Southside Area encompasses approximately 28 full city blocks and several more partial city blocks, all directly south of the main campus of the University of California at Berkeley (“the University”). The Southside Area is generally bounded by Bancroft Way and the University on the north; Dwight Way on the south (including parcels on both sides of Dwight Way); Prospect Street on the east (including parcels on both sides of Prospect Street); and Fulton Street on the west (including some parcels extending west from Fulton towards Shattuck Avenue and Downtown Berkeley). The Southside Area also includes properties extending south along Telegraph Avenue between Dwight Way and Parker Street.

The Southside Area contains a diverse mix of land uses, including housing, offices, retail, religious and cultural institutions, schools, hotels, parking, recreational uses, and public streets. The most common existing use is residential, which currently occupies approximately 60 percent of the developable land in the Southside Area (excluding streets).

In addition to housing, the Southside Area includes the important retail and social corridor of Telegraph Avenue, a major student-oriented street that provides storefront shopping, restaurants, community activity, and street vendors.

Shops and businesses used by students, visitors, and residents are also found elsewhere in the Southside Area. They include longstanding establishments such as Caffe Strada and Free House at College Avenue and Bancroft Way; the retail and commercial block along Dwight Way between Shattuck Avenue and Fulton Street; and the many shops and restaurants along streets perpendicular to Telegraph Avenue – particularly along Bancroft Way and Durant Avenue.

Recreational uses in the Southside Area include the University-owned and managed People’s Park.

Two city parks are located within walking distance of the Southside: Civic Center Park at Milvia and Center streets, and Willard Park at Derby Street and Hillegass Avenue.

The Southside Area contains a range of institutional land uses which include religious, social and cultural institutions, as well as the University of California, Berkeley (University). University-owned parcels, located mostly west of College Avenue, are shown in Figure 3. University-owned land includes University-operated student housing, University-owned student housing operated by the Berkeley Student Cooperative, and well as and non-residential uses associated with the University, such as the Tang Health Center, the Legends Aquatic Center, the and the UC Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

8 Figure 1 Regional Location

Project Description

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 9 Figure 2 Southside Area Location

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

10 Figure 3 University-owned Parcels

Project Description

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 11 The UC Berkeley 2021 Long Range Development Plan (2021 LRDP), adopted by the UC Board of Regents in 2021, establishes a framework to guides campus development over a 15-year period.3 The 2021 LRDP EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2020040078) evaluated future development that could occur from implementation of the 2021 LRDP, this includes University-owned land located in the Southside Area, specifically People’s Park, 2020 Bancroft Way, the former Anna Head School, Unit 3, and the Channing/Ellsworth complex.

Existing Zoning
The City’s Zoning Ordinance and associated Zoning Map identify specific zoning districts in Berkeley, and development standards that apply to each district. The zoning districts that currently exist in the Southside Area are as follows:
▪ C-T (Telegraph Avenue Commercial District)
▪ R-SMU (Residential Southside Mixed Use District)
▪ R-S (Residential Southside High Density District)
▪ R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential District)
▪ C-SA (South Area Commercial District)
These existing zoning districts are shown in Figure 4, and their associated zoning district standards are summarized in Table 2.

Parcels in the Southside Area located east of College Avenue are subject to the Hillside (H) Overlay, which includes maximum allowed height limits to give reasonable protection to views and allow for flexibility in setbacks and building separation to accommodate steep topography, irregular lot pattern, unusual street conditions, or other special aspects of the hillside areas.

The 2011 Southside Plan also established a “Car-Free Housing” area which currently applies to the C-T district, the R-SMU district, and some portions of the R-S and R-S(H) districts located north of Haste Street. The Car-Free Housing area allows for reduced parking requirements for residential uses and increased allowable lot coverage. The C-T district, R-SMU district, and R-S district – along with the Car-Free Housing area – only occur in the Southside Area. The R-3, C-SA, and Hillside Overlay districts occur in other parts of Berkeley as well as the Southside Area.

3 UC Berkeley Campus Planning Documents, 2021 Long Range Development Plan. https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/planning- documents.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

12 Figure 4 Existing Southside Area Zoning District Boundaries

Source: City of Berkeley 2023a

Project Description

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 13 Table 2 Summary of Existing Southside Area Zoning District Standards

C-T (north of
Dwight) 1
C-T (south of
Dwight) 1 R-SMU2 C-SA1 R-S2 R-32
General Plan
Designation
Avenue
Commercial
Avenue
Commercial
Residential
Mixed Use
Avenue
Commercial
High Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
Max Height
(stories) 3
None (assume 6
based on
height)
4 4 (5 with UP) 5 if residential,
3 if non-res
3 (4 with UP) 3
Max Height
(feet) 3
65’ (75’ with UP) 50’ (65’ with
UP)
60’ (65’ or 75’
with UP)
60’ if
residential; 36’
if non-res
35’ (45’ with
UP)
35’
Front
Setback4
None None 10’ (0’ with
AUP)
15’ (see R-4) 10’ (0’ with
AUP)
15’
Rear
Setback4
None None 10’ – 19’ (0’
with AUP)
15’-21’ (see R-4) 10’ – 17’ (can
be reduced
w/ AUP)
15’ (can be
reduced w/
AUP)
Side
Setback4
None None 4’ – 10’ (0’
with AUP)
4’-12’ (see R-4) 4’ – 8’ 4’ – 6’
Side
Setback4
(street)
None None 6’ – 10’ (0’
with AUP)
6’-15’ (see R-4) 6’ – 10’ 6’ – 10’
Max Lot
Coverage
100% 100% 40% - 60%
(100% with
AUP)
40-50% (see R-
4)
55% - 70% 40% - 50%
Min Building
Separation5
None None 8’-24’ 8’-28’ 8’-20’ 8’-16’
Residential
Parking
None required None required None
required
1 parking
space/unit
None
required if in
C-FH area; 1
parking
space/unit if
not in C-FH
area
1 parking
space/unit
Max
Residential
Density (GLA
residents
only)
350 sf. (GLA
density can be
increased with
UP)
350 sf (GLA
density can be
increased with
UP)
175 sf/GLA
resident
(greater
density with
UP)
350 sf (GLA
density can be
increased with
UP)
350 sf/GLA
resident (no
option to
exceed)
350 sf/GLA
resident
(no option
to exceed)
Min Lot Area None None 5,000 sf None/5,000 sf
for residential
only land use
5,000 sf 5,000 sf
Max FAR 5.0 (6.0 with UP) 4.5 N/A 4.0 N/A N/A
Min Open
Space
40 sf/DU 40 sf/DU 40 sf/DU
20 sf/GLA
resident
40sf/DU 50 sf/DU
20 sf/GLA
resident
200 sf/DU
90 sf/GLA
resident

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

14 C-T (north of
Dwight) 1
C-T (south of
Dwight) 1 R-SMU2 C-SA1 R-S2 R-32
Ground-
floor
residential
Not allowed Not allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Notes: AUP: Administrative Use Permit; DU: Dwelling Unit; GLA: Group Living Accommodations; UP: Use Permit, C-FH: Car-Free Housing 1 Other uses allowed in this district include residential uses; public and quasi-public uses; retail uses; personal and household services; office uses; food and alcohol services, lodging, entertainment, and assembly uses; vehicle service and sales uses; industrial and heavy commercial uses; incidental uses; and other miscellaneous uses with an approved AUP, UP, or ZC as applicable (BMC Table 23-204-1). 2 Other uses allowed in this district include residential uses; public and quasi-public uses; commercial uses; industrial and heavy commercial uses; and other uses with an approved AUP, UP, or ZC as applicable (BMC Table 23.202-1). 3 Parcels located east of College Avenue are also subject to the Hillside (H) Overlay height standards, which allow for an average and maximum height of 35 feet and three stories for new buildings, and modified height standards for residential additions. These limits can be exceeded with an Administrative Use Permit upon finding the project is consistent with the purposes of the Hillside Overlay zone.
4 Parcels located east of College Avenue are also subject to the Hillside (H) Overlay setback standards, which allow for a reduction in the minimum required main building setbacks with an Administrative Use Permit, upon finding the project is consistent with the purposes of the Hillside Overlay zone.
5 Parcels located east of College Avenue are also subject to the Hillside (H) Overlay building separation standards, which allow for a reduction in the minimum required building separation with an Administrative Use Permit, upon finding the project is consistent with the purposes of the Hillside Overlay zone.

3.2 Proposed Project Description
Consistent with what was envisioned for the Southside Area in the HEU and analyzed in the 2023 EIR, the proposed project would include amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, and associated General Plan text and map amendments, to increase development potential, particularly student-oriented housing.

Figure 5 shows the proposed zoning district boundary changes. As shown in Figure 5, the proposed project would include expansion of the R-SMU district in the area four blocks west of Telegraph Avenue, which would change from R-S to R-SMU, and three blocks east of Telegraph Avenue, which would change from R-3 and R-S to R-SMU. The proposed project would also include expansion of the R-S district into the areas currently zoned R-3 in between Haste Street, Dwight Way, and Fulton Street. No zoning boundary changes are proposed for the C-T district or within the Hillside Overlay zone.

Table 3 identifies the proposed modifications to the development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The project would involve the creation or modification of objective standards in the Southside Area, including building height, coverage, and ground-floor residential uses in the R-3, R- 3H, R-S, R-SH, R-SMU, and C-T zoning districts. The Southside Area also includes seven parcels zoned C-SA, but no changes are proposed for C-SA within the Southside Area.

Project Description

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 15 Table 3 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Building Height
Zoning standards for building height would be changed in the following ways:
▪ For all Southside Area zoning districts, remove the Use Permit option to exceed height limits. Height limits stated in the zoning ordinance will be the maximum allowed. Parapets would be allowed to exceed the maximum height by up to 5 feet as of right.
▪ Institute a maximum building height in the Southside Area as follows:
 Allow up to 85’ in C-T (increase from 65’ north of Dwight, and 50 feet south of Dwight)  Allow up to 85’ in R-SMU (increase from 60’, 4 stories)  Allow up to 55’ in R-S (increase from 35’, 3 stories)  Allow up to 45’ in R-3 within the Southside Area (increase from 35’, 3 stories), measured as an average, not a maximum
Building Footprint (Setback, Building Separation, and Lot Coverage) Zoning standards for building setbacks, separation, and lot coverage in the Southside Plan Area would be changed in the following ways:
▪ For all Southside Area zoning districts, remove the discretionary review option to modify setbacks, building separation, and lot coverage.
▪ Allow 10’ front setback in R-3 and R-3H (currently 15’). ▪ Allow 0’ front setback in R-S, R-SH, R-SMU, and C-T (currently allowed with an AUP in R-S and R-SMU, and by right in C-T).
▪ Allow 0’ street side setback in R-S, R-SH and R-SMU (currently varies from 6’ to 10’, depending on number of stories, may be reduced to 0’ with an AUP).
▪ Allow 4’ interior side setback in R-3, R-3H, R-S, and R-SH (currently varies from 4’ to 6’ in the R-3 and R-3H, and from 4’ to 8’ in the R-S and R-SH, depending on number of stories). ▪ Allow 0’ interior side setback in R-SMU (currently varies from 4’ to 10’, depending on number of stories, may be reduced to 0’ with an AUP).
▪ Allow 10’ rear setback in R-3 and R-3H (currently 15’, may be reduced to 0’ with an AUP). ▪ Allow 4’ rear setback in R-S, R-SMU (currently varies from 10’ to 19’ depending on number of stories, may be reduced to 0’ with an AUP).
▪ Eliminate requirement for shade studies in C-T.
▪ Eliminate the maximum lot coverage requirement in all districts. ▪ Eliminate the minimum building separation requirement in all districts.

Parking
Citywide residential parking standards would apply to all districts in the Southside Area:
▪ No minimum residential parking requirements (exception: 1 space/unit in Hillside Overlay on streets narrower than 26 feet)
▪ Residential parking maximum of 0.5 spaces/unit (exception: no maximum in Hillside Overlay on streets narrower than 26 feet)
Usable Open Space
Zoning standards for open space would be changed in the following ways:
▪ For all Southside Area zoning districts, replace dwelling unit and group living accommodation (GLA) room standards with gross residential floor area standard. The minimum requirement would be based on a per 1,000 square foot ratio of gross residential floor area.
▪ Institute a minimum usable open space requirement in the Southside Area as follows:
 At least 150 square feet per 1,000 square feet of gross residential floor area in the R-3 and R-3H (currently 200 square feet per dwelling unit/90 square feet per GLA room)  At least 50 square feet per 1,000 square feet of gross residential floor area in the R-S and R-SH (currently 50 square feet per dwelling unit/20 square feet per GLA room)

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

16  At least 40 square feet per 1,000 square feet of gross residential floor area in the R-SMU and C-T (currently 40 square feet per dwelling unit in R-SMU and C-T, 20 square feet per GLA room in R-SMU) ▪ For all Southside Area zoning districts, allow up to 50 percent of the total required usable open space to be provided from any of the following:
 Multipurpose rooms
 Fitness centers
 Pet washing rooms
▪ In the zoning districts that do not require a minimum front setback (R-S, R-SMU, C-T), allow usable open space to be provided in the building frontage zone, meeting the following requirements:
 Each square foot of usable open space provided in the frontage zone is weighted as 1.5 square feet toward meeting the minimum requirement
 Minimum average depth of 6’ from front property line, not required to be continuous for building frontage  Pedestrian-scale lighting
 Enclosed structures are prohibited
 Must be open to the sky, with the exception of building encroachments Floor Area Ratio
Zoning standards for floor area ratio (FAR) would be changed in the following ways:
▪ Institute a maximum FAR in the R-3, R-S, and R-SMU where FAR is not currently regulated ▪ Allow up to 3.0 FAR in the R-3, R-3H
▪ Allow up to 4.0 FAR in the R-S, R-SH
▪ Allow up to 7.0 FAR in the R-SMU
▪ Allow up to 8.0 FAR in the C-T (increase from 6.0 with a Use Permit north of Dwight, and 4.0 south of Dwight) Ground-Floor Residential Use
Zoning standards for ground-floor residential use would be changed in the following ways:
▪ Allow ground-floor residential anywhere in C-T if it is located behind a commercial use, with the commercial use occupying at least the front 30 feet of depth on the ground floor and the entire building frontage. ▪ Require minimum grade separation of 18 inches above finished grade for residential unit entries located on the ground floor within 6’ of the property line in any district in the Southside Area.

Density
▪ Adopt a minimum density standard for all residential uses in the Southside Area measured on a per dwelling unit basis, as follows:
 60 dwelling units per acre in the R-3, R-3H
 100 dwelling units per acre in the R-S, R-SH
 150 dwelling units per acre in the R-SMU
 200 dwelling units per acre in the C-T
▪ Remove the maximum density standard for GLAs in all districts in the Southside Area ▪ Remove the minimum lot area standard in all districts in the Southside Area

Project Description

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 17 Figure 5 Proposed Southside Area Zoning District Boundaries

Source: City of Berkeley 2023a

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

18 3.3 Proposed Project Buildout Assumptions
The maximum buildout scenario that may occur with the proposed project is shown below in Table 4 and provides the basis for this analysis. As shown in Table 4, the proposed project could result in up to 2,652 new units on 65 sites in the Southside Area. As discussed above under Section 2, the 2023 EIR analyzed a buildout of 1,000 units for the Southside Area. The proposed project would therefore include an additional 1,652 units compared to the HEU.

Table 4 Maximum Buildout Assumptions Under the Proposed Project R-3 R-S R-SMU C-T Total
Maximum Height 45 ft 55 ft 85 ft 85 ft –
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 3 4 7 8 –
Units
Total Units 48 142 1,661 3,092 4,943
Assumed Housing Element Units (Opportunity
Sites)/Existing Capacity
(11) (64) (558) (1,658) (2,291)
Projected Additional Units 37 78 1,103 1,434 2,652
Notes: ( ) denotes subtraction

Conclusion Regarding Preparation of an Addendum to the 2013 EIR

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 19 4 Conclusion Regarding Preparation of an
Addendum to the 2013 EIR
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

The impact analysis that follows in Section 5 of this Addendum, concludes, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the 2023 EIR due to substantial changes in the previously approved project, substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, or new information of substantial importance. None of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would call for preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met because of the proposed project’s changes to the approved HEU. Therefore, this Addendum is the appropriate level of environmental documentation to prepare for the proposed project under CEQA.

The City will consider this Addendum, along with the 2023 EIR, prior to making a decision on the proposed project.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

20 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 21 5 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Changes to the HEU
This Addendum analyzes the changes proposed under the proposed project compared to the analysis of the HEU project in the 2023 EIR to determine if any of the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that call for preparing a subsequent EIR would apply to the proposed project. The existing environmental conditions on and around the project site are substantially the same under present conditions as those described in the 2023 EIR. The analysis contained in this section provides updates to existing environmental conditions, where necessary, to characterize potential impacts of the proposed project.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of environmental issues areas suggested for assessment in a CEQA analysis. The 2023 EIR addressed most of these environmental issue areas in detail including the following:
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Air Quality
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Energy
▪ Geology and Soils
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Noise and Vibration
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Public Services and Recreation
▪ Transportation/Traffic
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Utilities
▪ Wildfire
No impacts associated with agriculure and forestry resources or mineral resources were found to occur, and these issues were not analyzed further in the 2023 EIR. The proposed project would be located within the study area analyzed in the 2023 EIR, which includes the entire city of Berkeley, and for the same reasons as stated in the 2023 EIR would not result in impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources or mineral resources because those resources are not present in the Southside Area. Therefore, these issues are not addressed further in this Addendum. The remaining environmental issue areas included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were analyzed in the 2023 EIR.

Potential environmental impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in this Addendum to determine if they are consistent with the impact analysis in the 2023 EIR, and whether additional mitigation measures are required to minimize or avoid further potential impacts. Where the following analysis identifies impacts, mitigation measures identified in the 2023 EIR and adopted and incorporated into the HEU, as well as existing applicable policies and regulations, are discussed, as relevant, with respect to mitigating potentially significant impacts of the proposed project that are different from (new) or substantially more severe than those identified in the 2023 EIR.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

22 5.1 Aesthetics
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of 2023 EIR, the HEU would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since most new buildings would be of a similar height as existing development and views that would be affected are already fully or intermittently impeded by mature trees and buildings. Development under the HEU would also be subject to design review as part of the project approval process and would be subject to the City’s general development standards (Berkeley Municipal Code [BMC] Chapter 23.304) as well as objective development standards to ensure that buildings are compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale. Development under the HEU would replace facilities such as parking lots with buildings that may reduce nighttime sources of light, and new light sources would likely be adjacent and similar to nearby light sources. Development would also be required to comply with BMC Sections 23.304.100 and 23.304.130 which require exterior lighting to be shielded to avoid light spillover onto adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, the closest State Scenic Highway to the city is I-580 in Oakland approximately 1.6 miles from the city limits, and the closest eligible State Scenic Highway is SR 13 located approximately 0.5 miles from the city limits. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, conflict with applicable local regulations governing scenic quality, create a new source of substantial light and glare, or substantially damage scenic resources within a scenic highway. Therefore, aesthetics impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Senate Bill 743 (California Public Resources Code Section 21099) passed in 2013, made changes to 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 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.

Although the proposed project would increase potential buildout in the Southside Area compared to what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR by up to 1,652 units, the proposed project would only facilitate development in the Southside Area, which is a designated TPA as mapped by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC 2021). The Southside Area is located within 0.5 mile of the Downtown Berkeley BART station and multiple bus routes such as the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus routes 6, 36, 51B, 52, 79, 604, 605, 851, and F. Therefore, because the proposed project would facilitate residential uses within a TPA, aesthetics impacts may not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

Pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21099.d, “aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.” Analysis of impacts related to historic or cultural resources is provided below in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 23 Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to aesthetics, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to aesthetics.

Furthermore, aesthetics impacts within TPAs, such as the Southside Area, are not considered to be significant effects on the environment. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to aesthetics than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

5.2 Air Quality
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the 2023 EIR, analysis of the HEU relied on the 2017 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. Construction-related air quality impacts were found to be less than significant with implementation of Berkeley’s Standard Conditions of Approval (COA) related to diesel particulate matter controls during construction, as well as Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU and requires adherence to BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce fugitive dust impacts.

Operational air quality impacts were also found to be less than significant because the VMT associated with HEU buildout would increase by approximately 38 percent, which would not exceed the rate of increase from the forecast population of approximately 43 percent. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the 2023 EIR, because the HEU’s VMT increase would not conflict with the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines operational plan-level significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, and the HEU would be consistent with control measures within the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, impacts related to conflicting or obstructing implementation of an applicable air quality plan would be less than significant.

According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), construction of individual projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore could result in potentially significant health risk impacts (OEHHA 2015). Construction conducted in response to the HEU 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), and result in potentially significant impacts related to construction TAC emissions. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU, construction-related TAC impacts were found to be less than significant. The 2023 EIR determined that operation of land uses facilitated by buildout of the HEU would not include sources of TACs 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, and also would not include new stationary sources onsite such as emergency diesel generators (BAAQMD 2017). Therefore, the 2023 EIR found less than significant impacts related to operational TACs.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

24 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); therefore, this analysis conservatively uses BAAQMD’s ADT threshold. Development consistent with the HEU could place sensitive receptors living in housing within approximately 500 to 1,000 feet of Interstate 580 (I-580) and Interstate 80 (I-80).

There is also the potential for development to occur within 500 feet of roadways that have existing traffic volumes of 10,000 vehicles per day or more such as University Avenue, Adeline Street, Telegraph Avenue, Claremont Avenue, and Gilman Street (Caltrans 2020). Therefore, development of those housing sites could create a potentially significant impact by exposing future sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU, would be required and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The 2023 EIR found that the HEU would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during operation since it would not include uses such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, or chemical plants. Impacts related to odors would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Although the proposed project would increase potential buildout in the Southside Area compared to what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR by up to 1,652 units, it would facilitate increased development located within 0.5 mile of the Downtown Berkeley BART station and multiple bus routes such as the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus routes 6, 36, 51B, 52, 79, 604, 605, 851, and F, as well as the University of California, Berkeley Bear Transit R-Line, which would allow for easier use of alternative modes of transportation and would reduce the use of personal vehicles and subsequent mobile emissions. Similar to the HEU, development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and BMC regulations, including:
▪ The requirements for residential indoor air quality;
▪ Part 6 of Title 24, which 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;
▪ BMC Section 23.322.090, which contains requirements for residential bicycle parking; BMC Section 19.36.040, which is a “reach code” that exceeds the energy efficiency standards of the California Energy Code;
▪ BMC Section 19.37.040, which 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; ▪ BMC Chapter 19.37 which requires a minimum 65 percent diversion of construction/demolition waste; and BMC Chapter 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which requires all- electric new construction to reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy sources.

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the primary goals and control measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 25 The proposed project would also increase the amount of construction activities compared to the HEU since it would potentially facilitate up to 1,652 more units, thereby further increasing air pollutant emissions that would affect local air quality. However, similar to the HEU, development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Standard COA regarding diesel particulate matter controls during construction, as well as previously adopted Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires implementation of BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. This would reduce construction-related emissions to a less than significant level, similar to the HEU.

According to the BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2023), determining compliance with the threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors requires an assessment of the rate of increase of plan VMT and population. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, VMT associated with the HEU would not exceed the rate of increase from the forecast population. Table 5 summarizes the net increase in citywide population compared to the increase in citywide VMT based on modeling performed by Kittelson & Associates (Appendix A). Citywide data is used because VMT is not localized or constrained only to the Southside Area.

Table 5 Increase in Population Compared to VMT Under Project 2020 Without
Project
2031 With
Proposed Project Net Increase Percent Change
Population 128,004 186,771 58,767 45.9%
Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled 1,436,244 1,982,372 546,128 38.0% Source: Data provided by Kittelson & Associates, Inc 2023 (Appendix A) As shown in Table 5, VMT for the proposed project would also increase at a lower percentage when compared to the 2020 Without Project scenario than the increase in population because the proposed project would concentrate growth and residences in proximity to jobs and services to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative models of travel. Therefore, impacts concerning criteria pollutants generated from operation of the project would be less than significant, same as the HEU.

Similar to the HEU, development facilitated by the proposed project could exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds for increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million and for increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute), and construction TAC impacts would be potentially significant. Nonetheless, individual development would be required to continue to implement previously adopted Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which would require preparation of a construction Health Risk Assessment (HRE) that would reduce construction TAC impacts to a less than significant level.

Operation of development facilitated by the proposed project would not include sources of TACs 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, and therefore would not be considered a source of TACs. Residences also do not typically include new stationary sources of TACs 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. Therefore, similar to the HEU, operational TAC impacts due to the proposed project would be less than significant.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

26 Unlike the HEU, the proposed project would only facilitate increased development within the Southside Area and would not place sensitive receptors living in housing within approximately 500 to 1,000 feet of Interstate 580 (I-580), Interstate 80 (I-80), or State Route 13 (SR 13). However, there is potential for development to occur within 500 feet of a roadway that has a traffic volume of 10,000 vehicles per day or more such as Telegraph Avenue, which could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, continued implementation of previously adopted Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would be required for future development located within 500 feet of Telegraph Avenue, which would require the incorporation of TAC reduction design features into future projects in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

As with the HEU, the proposed project’s changes to the HEU would only include residential uses and would not include odor-generating uses such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, or chemical plants. Therefore, development facilitated by the proposed project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during operation, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to air quality, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COA requiring construction BMPs, as referenced in the 2023 EIR, would remain applicable.

Air Quality – Diesel 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:

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 approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

B. All construction equipment shall be equipped with Tier 2 or higher engines and the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type (Tier 4 engines automatically 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 equipment 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

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 27 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.

Previously adopted 2023 EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 would remain applicable and would continue to be implemented and monitored.

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

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

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

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

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

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

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

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

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

The Air District’s number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

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

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

28 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.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts after mitigation with respect to air quality. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to air quality than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 29

5.3 Biological Resources
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the 2023 EIR, the HEU does not include 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, and include mainly sites in the urbanized core of the City. Therefore, the HEU would have less than significant impacts related to riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities, state or federally protected wetlands, and movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Nonetheless, trees, shrubs, man-made structures, and the ground surface throughout Berkeley provide suitable nesting substrates for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), and construction activities under the HEU could potentially affect nesting birds if carried out during breeding season. However, with compliance with the City’s Standard COA related to avoiding disturbance of nesting birds, impacts would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance (BMC No. 6,509-N.S.), and because there are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans within the city of Berkeley, the HEU would not conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Although the proposed project’s changes to the HEU would facilitate the development of up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area compared to the adopted HEU, the proposed project would only increase residential density on non-vacant and underutilized sites in a highly-urbanized area of the city away from open space preserves and non-channelized creeks and would not directly or indirectly impact the habitat of special-status species. New development facilitated under the proposed project would not differ substantially from the urban development already allowed in the Southside Area with respect to implications for biological resources. Although trees and other vegetation in the Southside Area may support species of nesting migratory birds protected under the CFGC, development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Standard COA regarding avoidance of disturbance of nesting birds, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project.

The Southside Area does not contain natural communities considered sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Two occurrences of Northern Coastal Salt Marsh are located approximately 3.3 miles to the southwest and 3.8 miles to the northwest, and two occurrences of Northern Maritime Chaparral are located approximately four miles to the southeast and five miles to the northeast of the Southside Area. These sensitive natural communities would not be affected by the proposed project due to their respective distances from the Southside Area. There are also no mapped or designated federally protected wetlands in the Southside Area (USFWS 2023). Some underground drainage culverts may intersect the Southside Area; however, these are not federally protected and therefore are not subject to United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction. Additionally, pursuant to 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. Due to the developed nature of the Southside Area, there would not be potential for impacts to protected wetlands. Additionally, the Southside Area is not within, and does not function as, a significant regional or local wildlife movement corridor, since there are no

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

30 waterways that could be utilized for movement of native residents or migratory fish. Furthermore, there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans adopted in the Southside Area, and the proposed project would not conflict with such plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

Similar to the HEU, the proposed project could result in 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 that policy through site-specific design review and use permits would reduce potential impacts to locally significant trees to a less than significant level. Development facilitated by the proposed project would also be required to adhere to the City of Berkeley’s Tree Ordinance (BMC No. 6,509-N.S.), which prohibits the removal of coast live oak trees unless determined to be necessary for public safety by the City Manager. Therefore, with adherence to the City’s Tree Ordinance and other policies and ordinances for protecting biological resources, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to biological resources, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COA requiring avoiding disturbance of nesting birds, as referenced in the 2023 EIR, would remain applicable.

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.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to biological resources.

No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to biological resources than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 31

5.4 Cultural Resources
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the 2023 EIR, the City has adopted regulations related to cultural resources that would apply to development facilitated by the HEU. Pursuant to Chapter 3.24 of the BMC, the City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) ordinance provides procedures for the local designation of historical resources and includes a provision for a permit review which allows the LPC to review and approve construction, alteration, or demolition of a designated landmark, buildings in designated historic districts, and structures of merit. In addition, pursuant to BMC Section 23.326.070(C), the City requires any application for a use permit or administrative use permit to demolish a non-residential building or structure which is 40 or more years old to be forwarded to the LPC for review before consideration of the permit by the Zoning Adjustments Board. Further, the City’s zoning project application has submittal requirements for zoning projects that include the proposed demolition or substantial change to any building 40 or more years old subject to environmental review requiring a historical resource evaluation. For projects subject to discretionary review, potential impacts to historical resources would be addressed by following the existing procedures of the City’s permit review process, and by adherence to the City’s conditions of approval. The BMC requirements and zoning project application submittal requirements listed above are intended to reduce impacts to historical resources by ensuring that proposed changes to buildings do not negatively impact the resource by encouraging the preservation and maintenance of historical materials and ensuring work performed is consistent with the resource’s historical character. Nonetheless, the 2023 EIR determined that there is potential for historic resources that have not yet been subject to evaluation or would not be subject to the City’s permit review or zoning application requirements to be adversely impacted, and Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which were adopted and incorporated into the HEU, would be required to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible.

However, even with implementation of previously-adopted Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2, existing and eligible historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development that would be facilitated by the HEU because specific actions intended for the reduction of impacts to historical resources could be deemed infeasible. In addition, future projects that are not subject to discretionary review and have not been previously evaluated for the presence of historical resources could result in the demolition of potential historic resources.

Therefore, impacts to historical resources were found to be significant and unavoidable.

The 2023 EIR found that ground-disturbance of native soils on properties for the purposes of development facilitated by the HEU could contain previously unknown prehistoric or historic-period resources, and individual development projects facilitated by the HEU that would involve ground disturbance activities would have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources, especially if they occur below previously disturbed sediments. However, with adherence to the City’s Standard COA related to archaeological resources, impacts would be less than significant.

The 2023 EIR also determined that ground-disturbing activities associated with development under the HEU could result in damage to or destruction of human burials. However, compliance with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5, 7051, and 7054), which has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains; PRC Section 5097.98, which addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to resolve related disputes; and the City’s Standard COA related to human remains; would result in impacts that would be less than significant.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

32 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Historical Resources
The Southside Area is home to approximately 168 known qualifying historical resources under CEQA (i.e., designated and/or eligible at the federal, State, or local level), as well as three potential historic districts (Piedmont Avenue Parkway Historic District, Telegraph Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic District, and College Homestead Tract Historic District) and additional resources that may not have been identified or evaluated yet. Since the certification of the 2023 EIR and approval of the HEU, 14 properties located on Bancroft Way were added to the City of Berkeley Landmarks list, the State Register, and/or the National Register:

CITY OF BERKELEY LANDMARKS LIST
▪ Fred Turner Building
▪ Harmon Gym (Hass Pavilion)

STATE REGISTER
▪ St Mark's Episcopal Church
▪ Gray Gables, Canterbury Foundation
▪ Trinity United Methodist Church
▪ University Art Museum
▪ Richard A Clark House, Davis House
▪ International House

CITY OF BERKELEY LANDMARKS LIST AND STATE REGISTER
▪ Westminster Hall

CITY OF BERKELEY LANDMARKS LIST, STATE REGISTER, AND NATIONAL REGISTER ▪ First Unitarian Church/UC Dance Studio
▪ College Women's Club
▪ George C Edwards Field and Stadium
▪ Hearst Gymnasium for Women
The HEU analyzed in the 2023 EIR did not include specific physical development projects, but the 2023 EIR assumed that development was a reasonably foreseeable outcome that would be facilitied by adoption of the HEU. The proposed project also does not call for specific physical development projects but, similarly, this analysis assumes that implementation of the proposed project’s zoning changes in the Southside Area would facilitate development projects. Therefore, as was assumed in the 2023 EIR, reasonably foreseeable development facilitated by the proposed project could impact historical resources through demolition and construction activities.

The City currently has procedures in place for projects that would involve the demolition of non- residential buildings 40 or more years old that require use permits or administrative use permits to be forwarded to the LPC for review. The City’s zoning project application also has submittal requirements for zoning projects that include the proposed demolition or substantial change to a building more than 40 years old subject to environmental review requiring a historical resource

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 33 evaluation. For projects subject to discretionary review, potential impacts to historical resources would be addressed by following the existing procedures of the permit review process, and by adherence to the City’s conditions of approval. These regulations are intended to reduce impacts to historical resources by ensuring that proposed changes to buildings do not adversely impact the resource through encouraging the preservation and maintenance of historical materials and ensuring work performed is consistent with the resource’s historical character.

Nonetheless, future development in the Southside Area may be allowed “by-right” and would not undergo discretionary review. For these projects, the City would not have the authority to implement review procedures for evaluating buildings 40 or more years old. Further, there are designated, known, and potential historic resources and districts in the Southside Area. Although the continued implementation of previously adopted Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would be required in order to reduce impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible, even with implementation of these mitigation measures, existing and eligible historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development that would be facilitated by the proposed project. Material impairment could occur because specific actions intended for the reduction of impacts to historical resources could be determined to be infeasible.

Material impairment could also occur because future projects that are not subject to discretionary review on sites with structures that have not been previously evaluated to initiate a landmark or structure-of-merit designation could result in the demolition of potential but unknown historic resources. Although future development would be required to comply with mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 as adopted in the HEU, similar to the HEU, impacts due to the proposed project’s changes to the HEU would remain significant and unavoidable. Nonetheless, impacts related to historical resources would not be substantially more severe than what was analyzed in the HEU.

Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
Similar to what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR, although development under the proposed project would occur on non-vacant and underutilized sites in previously disturbed areas, ground-disturbing activities such as earthmoving and excavation could still potentially damage and/or destroy unrecorded archaeological resources in subsurface soils within the Southside Area. However, future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Standard COA related to archaeological resources during demolition, grading, and construction, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, similar to the HEU. Additionally, construction activities could also potentially disturb human remains. However, implementation of the proposed project would involve disturbance in the same Southside Area as analyzed in the 2023 EIR, and conditions in the Southside Area have not substantially changed since certification of the 2023 EIR and adoption of the HEU. Future development would be subject to federal and State regulations, such as the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e) (CEQA), which state the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains. Future development would also be required to comply with the City’s Standard COA related to human remains resources during demolition, grading, and construction, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, similar to the adopted HEU.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

34 Effects and Mitigation Measures
Historical Resources
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to cultural resources, and no new mitigation measures are required. Previously adopted Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would remain applicable and would continue to be implemented and monitored.

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

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

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

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 35 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.

Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
No new or substantially significant effects to archaeological resources or human remains were identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COAs, as referenced in the 2023 EIR, would remain applicable and would reduce impacts to archaeological resources and human remains.

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.

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 applicant 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.

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.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

36 Conclusion
Historical Resources
Previously adopted Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would remain applicable to the proposed project. However, even with implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the adopted HEU. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to historical resources than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to archaeological resources and human remains. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to archaeological resources or human remains than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

5.5 Energy
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, of the 2023 EIR, construction facilitated by the HEU would involve temporary energy use. During construction, contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than 5 minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. The HEU would also be required to comply with standards and regulations such as 2019 CALGreen (as codified in CCR Title 24, Part 11) and BMC Chapter 19.37, which would ensure energy is used efficiently during construction.

Development under the HEU would be required to comply with standards set in California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation. California’s CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) and BMC Chapters 12.80, 19.36, and 19.36 would require implementation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects, limit the use of natural gas infrastructure in new development, and provide for electric-ready infrastructure for natural gas appliances in new buildings. The HEU would facilitate development along transit corridors, near BART stations, and in Priority Development Areas (PDA), which would place residents in proximity to public transit and encourage walking and bicycling. BMC Chapter

19.37 would require at least 20 percent of parking spaces at new multi-family residential developments to be capable of supporting electric vehicle chargers and raceway at the remaining 80 percent of parking spaces to facilitate future electric vehicle supply equipment, which would support the use of electric vehicles by future residents.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 37 In addition, the HEU would be consistent with state renewable energy and energy efficiency plans as well as the City’s General Plan policies related to energy. Impacts of the HEU would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Although the proposed project would increase potential buildout in the Southside Area compared to what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR by up to 1,652 units, which would increase the amount of construction activities, energy use during demolition and construction would be temporary, and construction equipment used would be typical of construction projects in the region. Construction contractors would also be required to comply with the same regulations outlined in the 2023 EIR such as CARB regulations, provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency, and 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Future development would also be expected to utilize fuel-efficient equipment consistent with State and federal regulations, as well as divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition debris and recycle and salvage 100 percent of excavated soil and land-clearing debris, concrete, and of asphalt during construction and demolition activities pursuant to the latest iteration of CALGreen and BMC Chapter 19.37. Therefore, construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant, similar to the adopted HEU.

Long-term operation of future development under the proposed project would require permanent grid connections for electricity to power internal and exterior building lighting, and heating and cooling systems. Electricity in Berkeley is supplied by East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area, future development would be required to comply with all standards set in the latest iteration of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) and locally adopted amendments codified in Titles 12 and 19 of the BMC (such as the City’s Reach Code), which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources by the built environment during operation. California’s CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) and BMC Chapters 12.80, 19.36, and 19.36 require implementation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects, limit the use of natural gas infrastructure in new development, and provide for electric-ready infrastructure for natural gas appliances in new buildings. Additionally, all future residential customers would be placed in EBCE’s Renewable 100 Plan which utilizes 100 percent renewable and carbon free energy. The proposed project would also facilitate increased development within a PDA which would encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling and walking, thereby reducing fuel consumption and minimizing the potential of the proposed project to result in the wasteful or unnecessary consumption of vehicle fuels. Therefore, given the above- mentioned reasons, the proposed project would also be consistent with State renewable energy and energy efficiency plans, the City’s General Plan, and the City’s CAP. Operational-related energy impacts would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects related to energy would occur, and no new mitigation measures are required.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

38 Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to energy. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to energy than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

5.6 Geology and Soils
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the 2023 EIR, the HEU would facilitate development in areas near the Hayward fault, which would increase the population and infrastructure that would be exposed to earthquake-related hazards. However, with compliance with applicable State and local laws such as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act and Title 19, Chapter 28 of the BMC, impacts would be less than significant. The 2023 EIR determined that the HEU would be located in areas with “low” to “moderate” liquefaction potential and low landslide risk, and impacts were found to be less than significant. The 2023 EIR also determined that although unstable soils within Berkeley have the potential to damage infrastructure or introduce hazards to human health and safety, the City requires site-specific geotechnical evaluations for individual development on steep slopes and unstable soils in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), and development under the HEU would be required to comply with the Policies S-13A and S-14B of the City’s General Plan Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element. Impacts related to unstable soils were found to be less than significant.

The 2023 EIR found that Berkeley’s soils are characterized by having “moderate” or a “high” potential for erosion-related hazards, and construction activities could result in erosion and the loss of topsoil. However, new development under the HEU would be required to comply with the SWRCB’s General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) adopted by the SWRCB. Development would also be required to comply with BMC Chapter 21, Section 40, which requires compliance with the Construction General Permit, as well as BMC Section 21.40.270 requires subdivision projects to comply with grading, erosion and sediment control regulations on file with the Public Works Department. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil were found to be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 4.6 of the 2023 EIR, many of the soil types within Berkeley have “moderate” to “high” potential for shrink-swell behavior, or expansiveness Building on unsuitable soils would have the potential to create future subsidence or collapse issues that could result in the settlement of proposed project infrastructure, and/or the disruption of utility lines and other services.

Development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with existing State and local regulations, such as the CBC and General Plan Action S-14B, which would require submittal to and review by the City of detailed soils and/or geologic reports prior to construction. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 39 The 2023 EIR found that construction activities related to the HEU would potentially result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The 2023 EIR found no impacts related to requiring septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
As with any site in the Bay Area region, development facilitated by the proposed project would be susceptible to strong seismic ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake. The Southside Area is located in a seismically active region and is located within or near several faults such as the San Andreas fault, the Hayward fault, the Wildcat fault, and the Miller Creek fault. Specifically, the Hayward Fault runs along the eastern edge of the Southside Area. Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of up to 1,652 more units compared to what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR, the proposed project would not facilitate development on the eastern edge of the Southside Area; therefore, fault rupture risks would not be increased by the proposed project. In addition, in the affected areas the proposed project would promote infill development which would replace older buildings subject to seismic damage with newer structures built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking. Future development would be required to conform to the CBC adopted pursuant to Title 19, Chapter 28 of the BMC, which includes requirements for foundation and structural design to resist seismic hazards and requirements for geotechnical investigation based on soil conditions and proposed construction methods in specific instances. New projects in the Southside Area would be reviewed by the Building and Safety Division during the normal plan review process to confirm that the necessary geotechnical investigations are completed and that the structural design of the project is consistent with design measures recommended in the Geological Report prior to issuance of required building permits. The City would therefore ensure that development occurring in the Southside Area would be designed and constructed consistent with the current City of Berkeley Building Codes and with the findings and recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical reports to effectively minimize or avoid potential hazards associated with redevelopment and/or new building construction.

Therefore, similar to the adopted HEU, earthquake-related impacts would be less than significant with adherence to State and local regulations.

As shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the Southside Area is located in areas of low to very low liquefaction hazards, and is not located within an identified landslide hazard zone. However, the portion east of Prospect Street is at the western edge of the landslide hazard zone, and the soils in the Southside Area have been identified as potentially unstable and having high potential for shrink- swell (USDA 2017, USDA 1981). Although the proposed project would increase potential buildout in the Southside Area compared to what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR by up to 1,652 units, as required by the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2690-2699.6, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and CBC requirements as adopted in the BMC, site-specific geotechnical investigations would be required for individual development projects within the portions of the Southside Area susceptible to seismic- related ground failure to identify the degree of potential hazards, design parameters for the project based on the hazard, and describe appropriate design measures to address hazards. These geotechnical studies customarily include recommendations for foundation design, as well as soil improvement techniques, both of which help mitigate these unstable soils.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

40 Figure 6 Southside Area Fault Lines and Liquefaction Susceptibility

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 41 Figure 7 Southside Area Landslide Susceptibility

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

42 Additionally, as discussed in the 2023 EIR, future projects requiring discretionary approval would be reviewed for their compliance with General Plan policies, including Policy S-13A: Hazards Identification and Policy S-14B: Land Use Regulation of the City’s General Plan Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element. Future development in the Southside Area and located in areas with identified hazards would be required to appropriately address and be designed to withstand associated hazards to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction, landslides, and expansive and/or unstable soils would be less than significant with adherence to State and local regulations, similar to the adopted HEU.

As mapped by the NRCS, the Southside Area is composed primarily of Tierra complex two to five percent slopes and Tierra complex five to fifteen percent slopes (USDA 2017). The Southside Area lies in a generally flat region, approximately 100 feet above mean sea level, and the Southside Area soils are characterized by having “none” or a “slight” potential for erosion-related hazards, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion. Construction activities of future development that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2012-0006- DWQ) adopted by the SWRCB. Compliance with the NPDES permit requires each qualifying development project to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Permit conditions require the development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, which must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. Compliance with the Construction General Permit is reinforced through the BMC Chapter 21, Section 40, which requires applicants to comply with grading, erosion and sedimentation control plan regulations on file with the Public Works Department. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with compliance with State and local regulations, similar to the HEU.

According to fossil collections records from the Paleobiology Database and University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online database, fossil localities were identified in Alameda County (Paleobiology 2022; UCMP 2022). Following the geologic map review, literature review, and UCMP database search, a paleontological sensitivity was assigned to the geologic units mapped within the Southside Area based on Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines (SVP 2010).

Figure 8 depicts the geologic units underlying the Southside Area and the immediate vicinity. As shown in Figure 8, the Southside Area includes three geologic units mapped at the surface: late to middle Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qhaf), Cretaceous rocks from the Great Valley Complex (Ku), and Late Cretaceous to Late Jurassic metasedimentary rocks from the Franciscan Complex (KJfs) (Graymer 2000).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 43 Figure 8 Geologic Units Underlying the Southside Area

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

44 Late to middle Holocene deposits (Qhaf) mapped through the majority of the Southside Area are too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources at or near the surface, and are considered to have a low paleontological sensitivity at the surface as defined by SVP (2010) standards; however, late to middle Holocene deposits may grade downward into more fine-grained deposits of early Holocene to late Pleistocene age that could preserve fossil remains at shallow or unknown depths. The depths at which these units become old enough to contain fossils is highly variable, but generally does not occur at depths of less than five feet. Therefore, areas mapped as Late to middle Holocene deposits (Qhaf) alluvial deposits are assigned a high paleontological sensitivity at depths greater than five feet (SVP 2010). Cretaceous rocks from the Great Valley Complex (Ku), which include the Panoche Formation (Kp), have yielded several paleontological resources throughout California. Cretaceous rocks from the Great Valley Complex (Ku, Kp) are assigned a high paleontological sensitivity. Late Cretaceous to Late Jurassic metasedimentary rocks from the Franciscan Complex (KJfs) formed from the cooling of molten rock that was subsequently metamorphosed. The high-heat and high-pressure conditions in which these rocks formed are not suitable for life or fossilization. Therefore, metasedimentary rocks from the Franciscan Complex (KJfs) have no paleontological sensitivity (SVP 2010). Because the Southside Area is underlain by geologic units assigned a high paleontological sensitivity, paleontological resources may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction (e.g., grading, excavation, or other ground disturbing construction activity), and damage to or destruction of fossils could occur. Therefore, previously adopted Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would be required for future development facilitated by the proposed project and would ensure the protection of paleontological resources and reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to geology and soils, and no new mitigation measures are required. Previously adopted 2023 EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would remain applicable and would continue to be implemented and monitored.

GEO-1 Protection of Paleontological Resources
If ground disturbance below the level of prior disturbance and into native soils is proposed to occur in areas mapped as Pleistocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf), Orinda Formation (Tor), or Knoxville Formation (Kjk), then the City shall require the following to be implemented:
▪ Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to initial ground disturbance, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010), to determine the project’s potential to significantly impact paleontological resources according to SVP (2010) standards.

If underlying formations are found to have a high potential for paleontological resources, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall create a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program, which will be approved by the City and contain the following elements:
▪ Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 45 ▪ Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work) in sediments assigned a high paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified Paleontological Resources Monitor, as defined by the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist based on the observation of the geologic setting from initial ground disturbance, and subject to the review and approval by the City. If the Qualified Professional Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions once the full depth of excavations has been reached, they may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or ceased entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist at that time. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. A Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources.

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

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to geology and soils. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to geology and soils than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

46 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the 2023 EIR, full buildout of the HEU would generate 81,985 MT of CO2e per year, equating to an increase of 1.7 MT of CO2e per service population per year. As analyzed in the 2023 EIR, the HEU’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 1.7 MT of CO2e per service population per year would not exceed the BAAQMD’s interpolated 2031 target of 3.7 MT CO2e per service population at the plan-level4 (refer below to the “Impacts of the Proposed Project” section for interpolation methodology). Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions were found to be less than significant.

The 2023 EIR found that the HEU would be consistent with GHG reduction goals and policies in the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, and the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Therefore, 2013 EIR determined that the HEU would have less than significant impacts related to conflicting with an applicable GHG reduction plan.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The City of Berkeley adopted a CAP in 2009 with the goal of reducing communitywide GHG emissions by 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. While the CAP is not considered a “qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan” for the purposes of streamlining GHG emissions analysis under CEQA, it is actively used by the City for guiding GHG emission reduction efforts. Since publication of the CAP, the City has revised the CAP to add the following climate commitments/goals in support of achieving the goals of the 2009 Plan:
▪ 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035
▪ Net-Zero Carbon Emissions by 2045, in alignment with Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-55-18
▪ Declared a Climate Emergency and resolved to become a Fossil Fuel Free City Since the certification of the 2023 EIR and approval of the HEU, BAAQMD has updated its GHG emissions thresholds of significance. The 2022 BAAQMD thresholds allow two options for plan-level projects to meet the significance thresholds (BAAQMD 2023):

1. Meet State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045; or

2. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

According to the CEQA Guidelines, projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan. The City of

4 BAAQMD developed plan-level thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies with determining significance for long-range local and regional plans. Local long-range plans are discretionary, program-level planning activities, such as general plans and general plan elements, specific plans, area plans, community plans, congestion management plans, and annexations of lands and service areas. The proposed project involves Zoning Ordinance and General Plan amendments to facilitate housing in the Southside Area. Plan-level thresholds are used instead of project-level thresholds because the proposed project constitutes as a programmatic document and applies to the Southside Area.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 47 Berkeley does not currently have a qualified GHG reduction plan, however, and this approach is not currently available.

To evaluate whether a project may generate a quantity of GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, State agencies have developed operational bright-line significance thresholds. Significance thresholds are numeric mass emissions thresholds that identify the level at which additional analysis of project GHG emissions is necessary. Projects that meet or are below the significance target, with or without mitigation, would result in less than significant GHG emissions.

Although the BAAQMD has adopted updated GHG thresholds as of April 2022, since the proposed project would tier from the 2023 EIR, the City as the lead agency has chosen to apply the significance threshold applied in the 2023 EIR. Therefore, the BAAQMD GHG 2031 efficiency target applied in the 2023 EIR is used to inform the threshold for this analysis. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, BAAQMD’s plan-level efficiency threshold of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year was first reduced to the SB 32’s 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 emissions, which would result in a threshold of 4.0 MT CO2e per service population per year. However, since that time, the State has set additional emissions reductions targets of net-zero carbon emissions by 2045. To set a significance threshold that would achieve this 2045 target, the 4.0 MT CO2e per service population per year threshold was reduced by 0.27 MT CO2e per year to reach 2045’s goal of 0 MT CO2e per population per year. Based on the trajectory to achieve this 2045 target, in the year 2031 this would equate to an interpolated threshold of 3.7 MT CO2e per service population per year threshold.

Proposed construction activities, energy use, daily operational activities, and mobile sources (traffic) associated with the proposed project would generate GHG emissions. CalEEMod was used to calculate emissions resulting from construction and long-term operation (see Appendix B for model output).

Construction Emissions
Emissions generated from construction of full buildout of development facilitated by the HEU are estimated to be 2,021 MT of CO2e per year.5 However, because the BAAQMD does not have a recommended threshold for construction-related GHG emissions, the estimated emissions associated with construction are not included in Table 6 and compared to BAAQMD significance thresholds.

Operational Indirect and Stationary Direct Emissions
Long-term emissions relate to area sources, energy use, solid waste, water use, transportation, and refrigerants. Each of the operational sources of emissions is discussed further below.

MOBILE EMISSIONS
As shown in Table 6 below, the additional 1,652 units facilitated by the proposed project would generate approximately 4,932 MTCO2e per year.

5 Construction emissions were determined assuming the 1,652 units were built as one continuous project using CalEEMod defaults.

Construction emissions for future projects would be based on the timing and size of individual projects.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

48 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
CalEEMod was used to calculate direct sources of air emissions associated with the proposed project. These include consumer product use and landscape maintenance equipment. Area emissions are estimated at 105 MTCO2e per year.

ENERGY USE EMISSIONS
Operation of the proposed project would consume both electricity and natural gas. The generation of electricity through combustion of fossil fuels emits CO2, and to a smaller extent, N2O and CH4.

Pursuant to the City’s All-Electric Ordinance, natural gas was converted to electricity to account for increased electricity usage. GHG emissions from energy use are estimated at 925 MTCO2e per year.

WATER USE EMISSIONS
Based on the amount of electricity generated to supply and convey water for the project, the proposed project would generate an estimated 72 MTCO2e per year.

SOLID WASTE EMISSIONS
Based on the estimate of GHG emissions from solid waste generated by the proposed project, as it decomposes solid waste associated with the proposed project would generate approximately 338 MTCO2e per year.

REFRIGERANT EMISSIONS
Based on the estimate of GHG emissions from refrigerants used for the project, the proposed project would generate an estimated 2 MTCO2e per year.

COMBINED EMISSIONS
According to the 2023 EIR, full buildout under the HEU was estimated to generate 81,985 MT of CO2e per year, equating to an increase of 1.7 MT of CO2e per service population per year which would not exceed the BAAQMD’s interpolated 2031 target of 3.7 MT CO2e per service population at the plan-level.

As shown in Table 6, the annual emissions associated with the additional development under the proposed project would total approximately 6,373 MTCO2e per year. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, of this Addendum, the proposed project would result in 4,130 new residents and therefore the service population for the purposes of the analysis is 4,130 residents. As shown in Table 6, the MTCO2e per service population for the proposed project would be 1.5 MT CO2e per service population. Therefore, these emissions would not exceed the 2023 EIR’s BAAQMD 2031 efficiency target of 3.7 MT CO2e per service population used in the 2023 EIR’s analysis.

In addition, as shown in Table 6, when combined with the GHG emissions from the HEU as analyzed in the 2023 EIR, the MTCO2e per service population of 1.7 would not exceed the 2023 EIR’s BAAQMD 2031 efficiency target of 3.7. The MT CO2e per service population of 1.5 for the proposed project is lower than the MT CO2e per service population of 1.9 for the HEU plus proposed project because the proposed project would place residents within 0.5 mile of the Downtown Berkeley BART station and multiple bus routes which would reduce usage of single-occupancy vehicles and VMT. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, similar to what was analyzed for the HEU in the 2023 EIR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 49 Table 6 Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e/year)
Proposed Project Emissions
Mobile 4,932
Area 105
Energy 925
Water 72
Waste 338
Refrigerants 2
Total Emissions 6,373
Proposed Project Service Population 4,130
Proposed Project Emissions Per Service Population
(MTCO2e/Service Population)

1.5 2023 EIR BAAQMD Interpolated Plan-level 2031 Target (MTCO2e/Service Population)

3.7 Proposed Project Exceeds Threshold? No
Total Emissions (HEU plus Proposed Project)1 88,358
Total Service Population (HEU plus Proposed Project)2 51,573 Total Emissions Per Service Population (HEU plus Proposed Project) (MTCO2e/Service Population)

1.7 2023 EIR BAAQMD Interpolated Plan-level 2031 Target (MTCO2e/Service Population)

3.7 Exceeds Threshold? No
1 81,985 MT CO2e for HEU in 2023 EIR + 6,373 MT CO2e for proposed project = 88,358 MT CO2e 2 47,443 population in 2023 EIR + 4,130 new residents under proposed project = 51,573 people See Table 2.5 “Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated” emissions. CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B.

Also similar to the HEU, development facilitated by the proposed project would comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards. As discussed in above under Section 3, Air Quality, of this Addendum, the net percentage VMT increase associated with the proposed project (approximately 38.0 percent when compared to 2020 Without Project) would be less than the net percentage population increase (approximately 45.9 percent when compared to 2020 Without Project). Therefore, on a per population basis, the proposed project would have the effect of reducing VMT and therefore GHG emissions associated with fossil fuel use.

Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of up to 1,652 more units compared to the HEU, all the units would be concentrated in the Southside Area within 0.5 mile of the Downtown Berkeley BART station and multiple bus routes such as the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus routes 6, 36, 51B, 52, 79, 604, 605, 851, and F, as well as the University of California, Berkeley Bear Transit R-Line, which would further reduce reliance on personal vehicles and encourage usage of alternative modes of transport. Development facilitated by the proposed project would also be required to comply with EV requirements pursuant to BMC Section 19.37.040, which currently requires 20 percent of parking spaces to be electric vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting future electric vehicle chargers and 80 percent of parking

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

50 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. Additionally, new construction would be required to be all electric per the requirements of BMC Chapter 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy resources. Future development would also be subject to BMC Chapter 19.37, which requires diversion of 65 percent diversion of construction/demolition waste, and recycling and salvage of 100 percent of excavated soil and land-clearing debris, 100 percent of concrete, and 100 percent of asphalt during construction and demolition activities. EBCE would be the electricity supplier for the proposed project, and would enroll residential customers in their Renewable 100 service plan, which provides 100 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources. Therefore, similar to the HEU, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies of the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, and the City’s CAP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects related to GHG emissions would occur and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the 2023 EIR, construction of development facilitated by the HEU could result in an increase in the overall routine, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in Berkeley. However, hazardous materials would be required to be transported under U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations (U.S. DOT Hazardous Materials Transport Act, 49 Code of Federal Regulations). The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) also regulates hazardous wastes under the authority of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Divisions 4 and 4.5). The 2023 EIR found that portions of Berkeley are located in Environmental Management Areas (EMA) as identified by the City’s Toxics Management Division (TMD).6 As a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Berkeley, the TMD is responsible for identifying areas known or suspected to have groundwater contamination that could result in potential health and environmental impacts, and development in the EMA would require project review by the TMD prior to issuance of permits.

6 EMAs can be located using the City’s Environment GIS portal:
https://berkeley.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2c7dfafbb1f64e159f4fdf28a52f51c6&showLayers=Berkeley%20Par cels;Environment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 51 Future development projects facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s Standard COA related to Environmental Site Assessments, Soil and Groundwater Management Plans, Building Materials Surveys, and Hazardous Materials Business Plans, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The 2023 EIR determined that operation of the HEU would not risk exposing the public to hazardous materials because residential uses do not typically use hazardous materials other than small amounts for cleaning and landscaping. Although the HEU would increase the number of residents near transportation corridors where hazardous materials may be routinely transported, as discussed above the transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the DOT. Additionally, since the HEU would facilitate residential development within areas of Berkeley where hazardous materials could be stored or used, such as near mixed-use or industrial areas, the potential of residents being exposed to hazardous materials may be increased. However, future development would be required to adhere to the California Accidental Release Prevention (CAL ARP) program as required by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) (Cal EPA 2023), develop a Hazardous Materials Business Plan enforced by Berkeley’s TMD (City of Berkeley 2023b), and adhere to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) established by Alameda County and the City of Berkeley (City of Berkeley 2019), which aim to minimize community exposure to hazardous and potentially hazardous materials by avoiding toxic cleaning and building materials and products in civic facilities and services; providing information, opportunities, and incentives to the community for proper disposal of toxic materials; encouraging non-toxic materials and products in homes and businesses as an alternative to products containing potentially hazardous materials; and providing procedures to follow in the event of a spill. Compliance with these policies would further prepare the City, reduce the risk of spills, and protect the public in the event of an accidental spill or exposure. Future development would also be required to comply with policies and programs in the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element, Environmental Management Element, and the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan such as Policies S-15, EM-12, EM-13, and EM-15, as well as Housing Element Programs 16, 21, 22, and 25, impacts would be less than significant.

The 2023 EIR determined that although 122 housing inventory sites listed in the HEU would be located within a 0.25-mile radius of Berkeley’s existing schools and childcare facilities, impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials and exposure to these materials would be less than significant with adherence to the above-referenced State and local laws, regulations and plans. The 2023 EIR stated that Berkeley has 361 documented sites containing or potentially containing hazardous materials contamination in underlying soil and/or groundwater that have not received regulatory closure. Development facilitated by the HEU could involve ground disturbance on sites where soil, soil vapor, or groundwater contamination is present such that hazardous materials are released, exposing construction workforce and nearby occupants to hazardous materials. However, development near hazardous locations would be preceded by investigation, remediation (cleanup), and monitoring, as necessary, under the supervision of the City’s TMD, RWQCB, or DTSC before construction activities begin. Furthermore, if an unidentified underground storage tank (UST) is uncovered or disturbed during construction, it would be removed under permit, and potential risks due to residual contamination would be minimized by managing the site according to existing standards contained in Division 20, Chapters 6.7 and 6.75 (Underground Storage Tank Program) of the California Health and Safety Code as enforced and monitored by the City’s TMD. Similarly, if groundwater contamination is identified, characterization of the vertical and lateral extent of the contamination and remediation activities would be required by the RWQCB prior to the commencement of new construction activities that would disturb the subsurface. If contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, the developer would be required to undertake

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

52 remediation prior to grading and development under the supervision of the RWQCB, depending upon the nature of identified contamination to levels that do not pose an unacceptable risk for the intended land use. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.

Development facilitated by the HEU also would be required to comply with Policy T-28 of the City’s General Plan which identifies actions for emergency access. Development would also be required to conform to the latest Fire Code requirements, including provisions for emergency access. Because there are no public or private airports within Berkeley, the 2023 EIR determined that the HEU would not result in impacts related to a safety hazard or excessive noise hazards within airport land use plan areas or in proximity to airports.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Much of the Southside Area is within the City’s identified Environmental Management Area (EMA), which includes areas known or suspected to have groundwater contamination issues. Within the Southside Area, the EMA includes all parcels with frontages along Telegraph Avenue, much of the northwest corner of the area along Fulton Street, and portions of parcels along and near College Avenue (City of Berkeley 2010). As shown in Figure 9, a search of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor database and the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker database (conducted on June 21, 2023), which contain information on properties in California where hazardous substances have been released or where the potential for a release exists, identified eight Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, seven of which are closed and one of which is open; one DTSC Cleanup Program Site; and one EnviroStor site. The former Cal Cleaners site located at 2531 Telegraph Avenue was identified as a DTSC Cleanup Program Site in need of evaluation. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and soil remedial action for this site were completed in 2011, which indicated that new development on the site may be exposed to onsite contaminants from operation of the former dry cleaning establishment (SWRCB 2023). However, future development of that site would be subject to DTSC oversight and regulation, City review, and other existing environmental laws related to cleanup of hazardous materials. Cleanup of the site would have to be certified as suitable for the intended land use by DTSC before new development could occur. Because development, including grading and excavation, would be contingent on cleanup of existing hazards on this site, no significant impacts related to hazardous materials would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Similar to the HEU, development facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to the City’s Standard COA. With adherence to the City’s Standard COA, the City’s TMD would evaluate projects to determine if Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are required to characterize potential contamination. If contamination is present, applicants would be required to develop a soil and groundwater management plan, a type of construction management plan that would identify procedures for soil and groundwater management and disposal to address hazards during construction.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 53 Figure 9 Cleanup Sites in the Southside Area

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

54 The proposed project would allow for development of up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area compared to the buildout analyzed in the 2023 EIR, and therefore would potentially involve transport, use, or dispose of more hazardous materials than what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR during construction, and would facilitate increased development on sites that are possibly contaminated and inactive, undergoing evaluation, and/or undergoing corrective action, where grading or excavation may result in the transport, disposal, and release of hazardous materials if they are discovered and removed from the site. However, future development would be required to comply with the same federal, State, and local laws and regulations as discussed in the 2023 EIR, such as U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations (U.S. DOT Hazardous Materials Transport Act, 49 Code of Federal Regulations), California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California H&SC Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Divisions 4 and 4.5). Although most of the Southside Area is within the City’s EMA, development within the EMA would be subject to project review by the TMD prior to issuance of permits. Future projects also would be subject to the City’s Standard COA regarding Environmental Sites Assessments, Soil and Groundwater Management Plans, Building Materials Surveys, and Hazardous Materials Business Plans, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Similar to the HEU, the proposed project’s changes to the adopted HEU would facilitate the development of residential uses, which may involve use and storage of some materials considered hazardous, though these materials would be primarily limited to solvents, paints, chemicals used for cleaning and building maintenance, and landscaping supplies.

These materials would not be different from chemicals and solvents already in wide use throughout the Southside Area, and the use of such products would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the disposal of household waste. New housing units would be located in areas near major transportation corridors and existing residential and commercial development. Hazardous materials may be transported into and throughout the Southside Area on Shattuck Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, and collector and local streets. The proposed project would increase the number of residents near transportation corridors where hazardous may be routinely transported compared to the HEU. However, as discussed in the 2023 EIR, compliance with existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations would reduce risks related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these materials. Therefore, impacts from a hazard to the public or the environment due to routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, or from accidental release or exposure to hazardous materials would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

One school, the East Bay School for Boys at 2340 Durant Avenue, is within the Southside Area. In addition, several schools are within 0.25 miles of the Southside Area, including the UC Berkeley main campus which is adjacent to the Southside Area across Bancroft Way, Berkeley High School, approximately 0.25 miles east of the area, Berkeley Rose Waldorf School, approximately 0.1 miles south of the area, Hearts Leap Preschool, approximately 0.1 mile south, and Willard Middle School, Monteverde School, Maybeck High School, and Emerson Elementary School, all approximately 0.25 miles south of the area. Although the proposed project would increase potential buildout in the Southside Area compared to what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR by up to 1,652 units, as described above, adherence to applicable requirements, including DOT and DTSC regulations as well as the City’s Standard COA regarding emissions and transport of hazardous materials would ensure that impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, similar to the HEU.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 55 Several streets in the Southside Area, including Telegraph Avenue, Durant Avenue, Channing Way, Haste Street, and Dwight Way are designated as emergency access routes to move people and emergency response equipment in a disaster. General Plan Policy T-28 identifies actions for emergency access. These include not installing diverters or speed humps on streets identified as Emergency Access and Evacuation Routes. While the proposed project would increase the number of units in the Southside Area by up to 1,652 units, and therefore would result in increased traffic compared to the HEU, the designated access routes would continue to serve as evacuation routes in the case of emergency because the proposed project does not propose street configuration changes. Moreover, because the Southside Area can be accessed by several designated access routes, and new development in the Southside Area is anticipated to be distributed throughout the area, the traffic increase that would result from new development in the Southside Area would not substantially impact one route and would be distributed among existing routes. Future development would be required to conform to the latest Fire Code requirements, including provisions for emergency access, and would not obstruct existing roadways or require the construction of new roadways or access points. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

The Southside Area is not located within two miles of an airport. The nearest airport to the Southside Area is the Oakland International Airport approximately 10 miles to the south. The Southside Area is not in the land use plan for the airport (Alameda County 2012). There would be no impacts related to airport safety hazards for people residing or working in the Southside Area.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to hazards and hazardous materials, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COA requiring contacting the TMD and determining if Environmental Site Assessments, Soil and Groundwater Management Plans, Building Materials Surveys, and Hazardous Materials Business Plans, as referenced in the 2023 EIR, would remain applicable.

Toxics. The applicant shall contact the Toxics Management Division (TMD) to determine which of the following documents are required and timing for their submittal:

A. Environmental Site Assessments

1. Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (latest ASTM 1527-13). A recent Phase I ESA (less than 6 months old*) shall be submitted to TMD for developments for:
▪ All new commercial, industrial and mixed-use developments and all large improvement projects.
▪ All new residential buildings with 5 or more dwelling units located in the Environmental Management Area (or EMA).
▪ EMA is available online at:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/IT/Level_3_-_General/ema.pdf

2. Phase II ESA is required to evaluate Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) identified in the Phase I or other RECs identified by TMD staff. The TMD may require a third party toxicologist to review human or ecological health risks that may be identified. The applicant may apply to the appropriate state, regional or county cleanup agency to evaluate the risks.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

56 3. If the Phase I is over 6 months old, it will require a new site reconnaissance and interviews. If the facility was subject to regulation under Title 15 of the Berkeley Municipal Code since the last Phase I was conducted, a new records review must be performed.

B. Soil and Groundwater Management Plan

1. A Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) shall be submitted to TMD for all non-residential projects, and residential or mixed-use projects with five or more dwelling units, that: (1) are in the Environmental Management Area (EMA) and (2) propose any excavations deeper than 5 feet below grade. The SGMP shall be site specific and identify procedures for soil and groundwater management including identification of pollutants and disposal methods. The SGMP will identify permits required and comply with all applicable local, state and regional requirements.

2. The SGMP shall require notification to TMD of any hazardous materials found in soils and groundwater during development. The SGMP will provide guidance on managing odors during excavation. The SGMP will provide the name and phone number of the individual responsible for implementing the SGMP and post the name and phone number for the person responding to community questions and complaints.

3. TMD may impose additional conditions as deemed necessary. All requirements of the approved SGMP shall be deemed conditions of approval of this Use Permit.

C. Building Materials Survey

1. Prior to approving any permit for partial or complete demolition and renovation activities involving the removal of 20 square or lineal feet of interior or exterior walls, a building materials survey shall be conducted by a qualified professional. The survey shall include, but not be limited to, identification of any lead-based paint, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PBC) containing equipment, hydraulic fluids in elevators or lifts, refrigeration systems, treated wood and mercury containing devices (including fluorescent light bulbs and mercury switches). The Survey shall include plans on hazardous waste or hazardous materials removal, reuse or disposal procedures to be implemented that fully comply with state hazardous waste generator requirements (22 California Code of Regulations 66260 et seq). The Survey becomes a condition of any building or demolition permit for the project. Documentation evidencing disposal of hazardous waste in compliance with the survey shall be submitted to TMD within 30 days of the completion of the demolition. If asbestos is identified, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 11-2-401.3 a notification must be made and the J number must be made available to the City of Berkeley Permit Service Center.

D. Hazardous Materials Business Plan

1. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) in compliance with BMC Section 15.12.040 shall be submitted electronically at http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/ within 30 days if on-site hazardous materials exceed BMC 15.20.040. HMBP requirement can be found at http://ci.berkeley.ca.us/hmr/
Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 57 impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the 2023 EIR, construction activities could cause soil erosion from exposed soil, and accidental release of hazardous materials used for equipment such as vehicle fuels and lubricant, or temporary siltation from storm water runoff.

However, future development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with State and local water quality regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality during construction, such as requirements of the SWRCB Construction General Permit (CGP), which requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and BMPs for projects that disturb one acre or more of land. Should dewatering be necessary during construction, development projects would be subject to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R2-2012-0060, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge or Reuse of Extracted Brackish Groundwater, Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Resulting from Treated Brackish Groundwater, and Extracted Groundwater from Structural Dewatering Requiring Treatment (Groundwater General Permit). Development would also be required to comply with BMC Chapters 17.20 and 21.40, which would reduce construction-related water quality impacts to a less than significant level.

Development under the HEU would also be required to comply with the BMC and the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (No. CAS612008). Development design would include BMPs to avoid adverse effects associated with stormwater runoff quality. The 2023 EIR stated that development would also be required to implement LID Measures and on-site infiltration, as required under the C.3 provisions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). In addition to Provision C.3, development would also be required to comply with Provisions C.6, C.10, and C.15 of the MRP, which would reduce operational water quality impacts to a less than significant level.

Similarly, with adherence to the NPDES Construction General Permit, NPDES MS4 General Permit, MRP, the Alameda County Clean Water Program, and the BMC, the 2023 EIR found that the HEU would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or alter the course of a stream or river, not result in erosion or siltation, and not substantially increase the rate of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site or exceed capacity of a stormwater system. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

The 2023 EIR determined that the HEU would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Compliance with the above-mentioned regulations would increase the potential for groundwater recharge, resulting in less than significant impacts to groundwater.

As discussed in Section 4.9 of the 2023 EIR, there are a few FEMA-designated 100-year Flood Hazard Areas throughout the city, particularly in the western portion of the city. However, development in Flood Hazard Areas would be required to comply with Chapter 17.12 of the BMC, which contains standards for construction in flood zones, as well as Policies S-26, S-27, and S-28 of the Berkeley General Plan, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

58 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Similar to what was assumed in the 2023 EIR, although development facilitated by the proposed project would occur on non-vacant and underutilized sites in previously disturbed areas, ground- disturbing activities would still have the potential to cause soil erosion from exposed soil, an accidental release of hazardous materials used for equipment such as vehicle fuels and lubricant, or temporary siltation from storm water runoff. If uncontrolled during construction, soil erosion and water pollutants could have adverse offsite effects on water quality. Although most future development projects in the Southside Area would likely be on sites under one acre in size, future development projects that disturb more than one acre of land would be required to comply with the requirements of the SWRCB CGP, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the CGP, as well as those that control hydrocarbons, trash, debris, and other potential construction-related pollutants. Post-construction stormwater performance standards are also required to specifically address water quality and channel protection events.

In addition, future development in the Southside Area would be required to comply with BMC Chapter 21.40, which contains regulations that govern the grading, erosion, and sediment control, as well as BMC Chapter 17.20, which requires BMPs to be implemented to minimize non- stormwater discharges during construction. Therefore, as with the HEU, construction-related water quality impacts would be less than significant.

The Southside Area is urbanized, largely consisting of impervious surfaces, including structures, parking lots, and roadways, with the exception of designated landscaped areas. Therefore, future development in the Southside Area would likely replace existing impervious surfaces and would not substantially increase the existing amount of impervious surfaces. Nonetheless, the proposed project would increase development potential in the Southside Area by up to 1,652 units, which could result in more water quality impacts during operation compared to the proposed project.

However, as discussed in the 2023 EIR with regard to the HEU, the proposed project would be required to comply with the same State and local regulations, such as the NPDES Permit; MRP, specifically Provision C.3, C.6, and C.15; and BMC regulations, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, similar to the HEU.

The Southside Area is urbanized, largely consisting of impervious surfaces, including structures, parking lots, and roadways. Stormwater runoff generated by new development or redevelopment under the proposed project would be collected by drainage inlets and conduits and conveyed to the San Francisco Bay, as under current conditions. There are no surface waters within the Southside Area, and the area is not located within a FEMA designated Flood Hazard Area. Site-specific drainage pattern alterations could be required for development facilitated by the proposed project, but such alterations would not result in substantial adverse effects. Because the Southside Area is already largely covered with impervious surfaces, development under the proposed project would not introduce substantial new impervious areas to the extent that the rate or amount of surface runoff would substantially increase, would not introduce substantial new surface water discharges, and would not result in flooding on- or off-site. Regulated projects7 within the Southside Area must treat 80 percent or more of the volume of annual runoff for volume-based treatment measures or 0.2- inch per hour for flow-based treatment measures. Furthermore, projects that create or replace

7 Pursuant to the Alameda County Clean Water Program, new development or redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces or 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface for special land use categories (i.e., uncovered parking lots, restaurants, auto service facilities, and gasoline stations) are “regulated projects” and are required to implement site design measures, source control measures, and stormwater treatment measures to reduce stormwater pollution during operation of the project.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 59 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface must implement site design measures to reduce stormwater runoff. All regulated projects within the Southside Area would also be required to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that includes the post-construction BMPs that control pollutant levels pursuant to BMC Chapter 17.20. SWMPs would be reviewed by the City of Berkeley prior to the issuance of building permits. In areas of the city that have soils with low permeability and/or area with high water tables, which may include portions of the Southside Area, BMPs that do not rely on infiltration are most appropriate. Therefore, similar to the HEU, this impact would be less than significant.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to hydrology and water quality, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

5.10 Land Use and Planning
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the 2023 EIR, the HEU would have no impact regarding division of an established community because the HEU includes policies and programs to encourage housing development on underutilized and vacant sites and along established commercial corridors and neighborhoods. The HEU was determined to be consistent with the goals and strategies of Plan Bay Area 2050, as well as policies in the City’s General Plan and the BMC. As stated in Government Code Section 65589.5(a), the Legislature has concluded that “the lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” The HEU establishes policies and programs to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community. In addition, the sites inventory provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the RHNA through the year 2031, as established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),as well as efficiently utilize vacant, underutilized, and underdeveloped lots within the City to increase the supply of housing. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Although the proposed project would allow for up to an additional 1,652 units in the Southside Area, no new roads, linear infrastructure, or other development features are proposed that would divide an established community or limit movement, travel, or social interaction between established land uses. Therefore, similar to the HEU, this impact would be less than significant.

The proposed project would include Zoning Ordinance amendments and zoning map changes and associated General Plan text and map amendments to create or modify objective design standards

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

60 in the Southside Area, including building height, coverage, ground-floor residential uses, and zoning district boundaries, to increase residential development potential, particularly student-oriented housing, in the R-3, R-3H, R-S, R-SH, R-SMU, and C-T zoning districts. As shown in Figure 5, the proposed project would include expansion of the R-SMU district in the area four blocks west of Telegraph Avenue, which would change from R-S to R-SMU, and three blocks east of Telegraph Avenue, which would change from R-3 and R-S to R-SMU. The proposed project would also include expansion of the R-S district into the areas currently zoned R-3 in between Haste Street, Dwight Way, and Fulton Street. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with zoning requirements for residential uses as described in Title 23, Zoning, of the BMC.

Therefore, similar to the HEU, the proposed project would be consistent with the BMC.

As shown below under Table 7 and Table 8, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies from Plan Bay Area 2050 and the City’s General Plan as analyzed in the 2023 EIR, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 7 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050
Measure Proposed HEU Project Consistency
Housing. Spur Housing Production for Residents of all Income Levels H3. Allow a greater mix of housing densities
and types in Growth Geographies. Allow a
variety of housing types at a range of densities
to be built in Priority Development Areas, select
Transit-Rich Areas and Select High-Resource
Areas.

Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate up to 1,652 more units compared to the HEU in the Southside Area, which is a TPA within 0.5 mile of the Downtown Berkeley BART station and multiple bus routes such as the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus routes 6, 36, 51B, 52, 79, 604, 605, 851, and F, as well as the University of California, Berkeley Bear Transit R-Line. This would further reduce reliance on personal vehicles and encourage usage of alternative modes of transport.

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

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

EN4. Maintain urban growth boundaries. Using
urban growth boundaries and other existing
environmental protections, focus new
development within the existing urban footprint
or areas otherwise suitable for growth, as
established by local jurisdictions.

Consistent. The project would facilitate increased development of housing on vacant and/or underutilized sites in the Southside Area, which would reduce pressure to develop open space areas. By placing residents close to jobs and alternative methods of transportation, the project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other criteria pollutants associated with vehicle use to help communities stay healthy and safe.

Source: ABAG 2021

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 61 Table 8 Project Consistency with Relevant General Plan Goals and Policies General Plan Policy Proposed HEU Project Consistency
Land Use Element
Maintain and Preserve the Character of Berkeley
Policy LU-3 Infill Development. Encourage infill
development that is architecturally and
environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of
sustainable planning and construction, and is
compatible with neighboring land uses and
architectural design and scale.

Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate increased infill development on underutilized sites in order to increase density to accommodate a higher number of residents. Individual future projects would be subject to the City’s existing general development standards (BMC Chapter 23.304) to ensure that buildings are compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale.

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

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

Consistent. Future development would be required to comply with General Plan land use and design review policies and processes, and discretionary review would be required for applicable projects.

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

Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate the
development of up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area which is a TPA within 0.5 mile of the Downtown Berkeley BART station and multiple bus routes such as the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus routes 6, 36, 51B, 52, 79, 604, 605, 851, and F, as well as the University of California, Berkeley Bear Transit R-Line. This would encourage the use of alternative modes of vehicles and reduce VMT.

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

Consistent. Future development would be required to comply with residential bicycle parking standards pursuant to BMC Section 23.322.090. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere or conflict with the City’s pedestrian or bicycle network.

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

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

Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate the
development of up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area which is a TPA within 0.5 mile of the Downtown Berkeley BART station and multiple bus routes such as the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus routes 6, 36, 51B, 52, 79, 604, 605, 851, and F, as well as the University of California, Berkeley Bear Transit R-Line. Pursuant to Chapter 23.334 of the BMC, developments that provide more affordable housing than required and/or a robust Transportation Demand Management Plan would be able to reduce their parking supply.

Policy LU-27 Avenue Commercial Areas. Maintain
and improve Avenue Commercial areas, such as
University, San Pablo, Telegraph, and South
Shattuck, as pedestrian-friendly, visually attractive
areas of pedestrian scale and ensure that Avenue
areas fully serve neighborhood needs as well as a
broader spectrum of needs.

Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate the
development of up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area compared to the HEU, which includes the northern portion of Telegraph Avenue. The proposed project would streamline housing development by providing an objective set of
development standards, such as building height, setbacks, and minimum density. This would ensure that future development is compatible with the character and scale of Berkeley according to the City’s standards.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

62 General Plan Policy Proposed HEU Project Consistency Transportation Element
Automobile Use Reduction
Policy T-10 Trip Reduction. To reduce automobile
traffic and congestion and increase transit use and
alternative modes in Berkeley, support, and when
appropriate require, programs to encourage
Berkeley citizens and commuters to reduce
automobile trips, such as:

1. Participation in a citywide Eco-Pass Program
(also see Transportation Policy T-3).

2. Participation in the Commuter Check Program.

3. Carpooling and provision of carpool parking and
other necessary facilities.

4. Telecommuting programs.

5. “Free bicycle” programs and electric bicycle
programs.

6. “Car-sharing” programs.

7. Use of pedal-cab, bicycle delivery services, and
other delivery services.

8. Programs to encourage neighborhood-level
initiatives to reduce traffic by encouraging
residents to combine trips, carpool,
telecommute, reduce the number of cars
owned, shop locally, and use alternative modes.

9. Programs to reward Berkeley citizens and
neighborhoods that can document reduced car
use.

10. Limitations on the supply of long-term
commuter parking and elimination of subsidies
for commuter parking.

11. No-fare shopper shuttles connecting all
shopping districts throughout the city.

Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate the
development of up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area which is a TPA within 0.5 mile of the Downtown Berkeley BART station and multiple bus routes such as the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus routes 6, 36, 51B, 52, 79, 604, 605, 851, and F, as well as the University of California, Berkeley Bear Transit R-Line. This would encourage future residents to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and utilize alternative modes of transportation. As shown in Table 10, under Section 5.14, Transportation, the proposed project would result in a VMT per capita of 10.61, which is lower than the VMT per capita for the HEU of 10.86. In addition, future development would be required to comply with Chapter 23.334 of the BMC, which requires development and implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management program.

Urban Design & Preservation
Protection of Existing Resources
Policy UD-3 Regulation of Neighborhood
Character. Use regulations to protect the character
of neighborhoods and districts, and respect the
particular conditions of each area.

Consistent. Individual future development projects would be subject to the development standards proposed under the proposed project which are designed to facilitate residential development while protecting neighborhood character by
objectively regulating development standards, such as height, setbacks, and minimum density. The impacts associated with adoption of these development standards are analyzed
throughout this Addendum.

New Construction and Alterations
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.

Consistent. Individual future development projects would be subject to the development standards proposed under the proposed project which are designed to facilitate residential development while protecting neighborhood character by
objectively regulating development standards, such as height, setbacks, and minimum density. The impacts associated with adoption of these development standards are analyzed
throughout this Addendum.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 63 General Plan Policy Proposed HEU Project Consistency
Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design. Promote
environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in
new buildings.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.5, Energy, and Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, future development projects would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen and the California Energy Code, which include requirements for environmentally sensitive and
sustainable design practices. In addition, new construction would be required to be all-electric per the requirements of BMC Chapter 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy resources.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to land use and planning, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to land use and planning. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to land use and planning than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

5.11 Noise
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
According to the Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management Element, noise-sensitive uses include but are not limited to residences, child-care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes (City of Berkeley 2001). As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of the 2023 EIR, the HEU could expose noise- sensitive receptors to combined noise levels from construction equipment of 84 dBA Leq at 50 feet without a pile driver, and 95 dBA Leq at 50 feet with a pile driver. Development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the City’s Standard COAs related to construction hours, construction noise reduction, construction noise management, and noise reduction plans.

Nonetheless, construction noise levels could still exceed the City’s standards for stationary equipment in both multi-family residential and commercial zones and could still exceed the City’s standards at multiple sites. Therefore, construction noise impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.

Operation of projects facilitated by the HEU would include mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, delivery and trash trucks, and other noise- generating activities. However, such activities would be similar to the existing noise environment, and development would be required to comply with Section 13.40.070 of the BMC, which states that stationary machines and other devices located on the exterior of structures which generate sounds perceptible outside the perimeters of the lot on which the machine or other device is located must be installed with such sound transmission control measures to adequately minimize or eliminate the transmission of the sound to a level not to exceed 60 dBA on weekdays and 50 dBA on weekends for single family residential beyond property perimeters; Section 23130 of the California

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

64 Motor Vehicle Code which establishes maximum sound levels of 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet for trucks operating at speeds less than 35 miles per hour; Section 13.40.070 of the BMC which prohibits operating or permitting the operation of a mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool before 7:00 a.m. on a weekday (or before 9:00 a.m. on a weekend or holiday) or after 7:00 p.m. on a weekday (or after 8:00 p.m. on a weekend or holiday) such that the sound therefrom across a residential or commercial real property line violates BMC Section 13.40.050 or 13.40.060; and Section 19.29 of the BMC which includes the 2019 California Residential Code, as adopted in Title 24 Part 2.5 of the California Code of Regulations, which would reduce operational noise impacts to a less than significant level. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, daily VMT from the HEU would increase by approximately 6 percent over existing 2020 conditions by the year 2031. A 6 percent increase in traffic on a roadway would equate to an increase in noise of 0.2 dBA, which would not double the existing mobile noise source and would not increase noise levels by even the most conservative threshold of 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase. Off-site traffic noise impacts were therefore found to be less than significant.

The 2023 EIR found that construction activities related to development facilitated by the HEU would not result in significant vibration impacts with adherence to the City’s Standard COA related to construction vibration. The 2023 EIR also found that groundborne vibration in the vicinity of development facilitated by the HEU would be primarily generated by vehicular travel on the local roadways. However, the HEU would not increase traffic trips such that it would be perceptible to nearby noise-sensitive receptors, and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in 2023 EIR Section 4.11, development facilitated by the HEU would not be exposed to intermittent noise levels from overhead flight patterns from airports in the city, because there are none located within Berkeley. In addition, residential development would be required to incorporate noise insulation features consistent with achieving State and local standards to reduce interior noise levels to below 45 dBA. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Construction Noise
The proposed project would increase the potential number of units in the Southside Area by up to 1,652 units compared to the adopted HEU, resulting in additional demolition and construction activity that would generate temporary increases in ambient noise levels. It is also possible that concurrent construction activity on nearby development sites could result in a higher combined temporary increase in ambient noise at sensitive receptors in the vicinity, and result in an adverse impact on nearby noise-sensitive receptors. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, construction noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment, the duration of use, the distance to receivers, and the potential for pile driving. Noise associated with construction of most development facilitated by the proposed project would be typical of residential construction in urban areas, but could exceed the eight-hour 80 dBA Leq daytime significance threshold at residences. Similar to the HEU, the proposed project could facilitate larger projects that may include relatively lengthy construction durations (i.e., longer than 18 months), two or more subterranean levels, use of multiple pieces of heavier equipment (i.e., cranes, excavators, dozers), simultaneous use of multiple pieces of equipment, and generally noisier activities, such as the potential for pile driving. This could potentially result in significant noise impacts, in particular to adjacent residential zones or other nearby noise-sensitive receivers, and would temporarily increase ambient noise levels above FTA noise limits. Development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Standard COA related to construction hours, construction noise reduction programs,

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 65 construction noise management, and noise reduction plans, which would reduce construction noise to the extent feasible. However, as discussed in the 2023 EIR, the Standard COAs would include the installation of temporary sound barriers where warranted, which are the most effective advanced measure to reduce noise from construction sites adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors, and no further measures are available to provide additional reductions in construction noise. Therefore, construction noise levels could still exceed the City’s standards for stationary equipment in both multi-family residential and commercial zones. Furthermore, construction noise levels could exceed the City’s standards at multiple sites where the proposed project would facilitate development in the Southside Area. Similar to the HEU, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Operational Noise
The additional 1,652 units facilitated under the proposed project would generate noise associated with the operation of residences. Typical noise sources associated with residential uses include stationary HVAC equipment, vehicle movement (e.g., delivery and trash hauling), outdoor activities, and traffic on area roadways. These impacts are discussed below.

HVAC EQUIPMENT
Because of the proposed increased density of development in the Southside Area, this analysis includes the conservative assumption that new HVAC equipment could be installed as close as 20 feet from noise-sensitive receptors on adjacent properties. Typical residential HVAC units are anticipated to generate noise levels ranging from 50 to 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the source, if unshielded by equipment enclosures (Illingworth & Rodkin 2019). Based on a standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from stationary noise sources, it is estimated that new HVAC equipment in the Southside Area would generate noise levels reaching 68 dBA at 20 feet from the source. This estimate does not account for the shielding effect of equipment enclosures or rooftop parapets, which could block line of sight between the source and noise-sensitive receptors, reducing noise levels by at least 10 dBA. However, as discussed in the 2023 EIR, the design and placement of new HVAC equipment would be required to comply with Section 13.40.070 of the BMC, which states that stationary machines and other devices located on the exterior of structures which generate sounds perceptible outside the perimeters of the lot on which the machine or other device is located must be installed with such sound transmission control measures to adequately minimize or eliminate the transmission of the sound to a level not to exceed 60 dBA on weekdays and 50 dBA on weekends for single family residential beyond property perimeters. Stationary equipment shall not exceed 65 dBA on weekdays and 55 dBA on weekends for multi-family residential areas.8 Furthermore, a motor, machinery, pump, such as swimming pool equipment, etc., must be sufficiently enclosed or muffled and maintained so as not to create a Noise Disturbance in accordance with Section 13.40.050 or 13.40.060. Therefore, impacts related to HVAC equipment would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

VEHICLE ACTIVITY (DELIVERY AND TRASH HAULING)
Maximum noise levels generated by movement of medium duty delivery trucks generally range from 61 to 70 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet, depending on the speed at which the truck is driving (Olson 1972). The average noise level for a single idling truck generally ranges from 72 to 77 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. It is assumed that delivery and trash hauling trucks serving additional

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

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

66 development in the Southside Area could stop as close as 25 feet to adjacent residences on narrow two-lane streets such as Channing Way. An increase of up to 1,652 units in the Southside Area could result in a slightly higher volume of truck trips for delivery and trash hauling. However, truck activity would not substantially exceed existing activity in the already urbanized Southside. For example, trash and recycling trucks already visit most existing properties that could be redeveloped under the proposed project. Additionally, as discussed in the 2023 EIR, Section 23130 of the California Motor Vehicle Code establishes maximum sound levels of 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet for trucks operating at speeds less than 35 miles per hour, and solid waste pick-up operations are typically scheduled during daytime hours when people tend to be less sensitive to noise. Furthermore, these noise events from trucks are typically transient and intermittent, and do not occur for a sustained period of time. Therefore, similar to the HEU, impacts related to delivery and trash hauling would be less than significant.

OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS
Addition of up to 1,652 units in the Southside Area would increase the number of residents and thereby increase noise generated by conversations, music, television, or other outdoor sound- generating equipment (e.g., leaf blowers), particularly in the event future residents open their windows or such activities take place on balconies or in common outdoor amenity areas. However, these noise-generating activities would be similar to those of the existing urban environment.

Further, violations of the noise ordinance would be subject to BMC Chapter 13.40. This chapter prohibits noise disturbances such as loud equipment, amplified sound not associated with a permitted event, or yelling and sets forth procedures if violations occur. Section 13.40.070 of the BMC prohibits operating or permitting the operation of a mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool before 7:00 a.m. on a weekday (or before 9:00 a.m. on a weekend or holiday) or after 7:00 p.m. on a weekday (or after 8:00 p.m. on a weekend or holiday) such that the sound therefrom across a residential or commercial real property line violates Section

13.40.050 or 13.40.060. Furthermore, Chapter 19.29 of the BMC includes the 2019 California Residential Code, as adopted in Title 24 Part 2.5 of the California Code of Regulations. Therefore, similar to the HEU, impacts related to outdoor activities would be less than significant.

ROADWAY VEHICLE NOISE
The proposed project would allow for up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area compared to what was anticipated under the HEU. The proposed project could affect ambient traffic noise if the proposed project facilitated development in a way that would increase vehicle trips to and from the Southside Area. However, as shown in Table 9, based on information provided by Kittelson & Associates, the proposed project would decrease vehicle trips compared to buildout under the HEU without the proposed project by placing housing in an area served by transit and within walking and bicycling distance to jobs and services. Therefore, the project would not double the existing mobile noise source and would not increase noise levels by even the most conservative threshold of 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase. Similar to the HEU, impacts related to off- site operational noise would be less than significant.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 67 Table 9 Daily Vehicle Trip Summary
Total Daily Vehicle Trips
2031 With HEU 3,391,463
2031 With Proposed Project 3,370,416
Change in Vehicle Trips (2031 With HEU and 2031 With Proposed Project)1 (21,047) (0.6% decrease) 1 The change in vehicle trips is decreased since the proposed project would concentrate a higher number of development in proximity to jobs, services, and transit which would reduce daily vehicle trips. ( ) denotes subtraction
Source: Kittelson & Associates 2023 (Appendix A)
Operational Vibration
Similar to the HEU, it is not anticipated that operation of residential development would involve activities that would result in substantial vibration levels, such as use of heavy equipment or machinery. Based on the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018) guidance document, rubber tires and suspension systems dampen vibration levels from vehicles on local roadways to a level that is rarely perceptible. Therefore, similar to the HEU, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to operational vibration.

Construction Vibration
The proposed project would allow for additional development in the Southside Area, the construction of which could intermittently generate strong vibration. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, general construction equipment such as a vibratory roller would generate vibration levels up to 0.21 in./sec. PPV at 25 feet, while more intensive equipment such as pile driving could generate a vibration level of approximately 0.64 in./sec. PPV at 25 feet. According to Caltrans impact criteria, the damage threshold for historic sites (which are most sensitive to impacts from groundborne vibration) is 0.12 in./sec. PPV. Groundborne vibration from hoe rams, bulldozers, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammers would not exceed the 0.1 in./sec. PPV threshold for sensitive historic sites. While groundborne vibration from vibratory rollers would only exceed the threshold for building damage for historic sites at 25 feet from the source, vibration levels from pile driving would exceed one or more of building damage thresholds for historic sites, general old buildings, and older and newer residential structures. Furthermore, vibration levels associated with pile driving would also exceed the threshold of 0.25 in./sec. PPV for human annoyance at various distances up to 75 feet. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Standard COA related to construction vibration, which would ensure groundborne vibration from vibratory rollers and vibration levels from pile driving would not occur in a manner that would damage buildings. Therefore, similar to the HEU, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Airport Noise
As discussed in the 2023 EIR, the closest airport to Berkeley is the Oakland (OAK) Airport which is located 11 miles south of the Southside Area. According to the Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Berkeley is located outside of the airport’s noise contours and the airport influence area illustrated in Figure 3-1 of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Alameda County 2012). Therefore, similar to the HEU, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the plan area to excessive noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

68 Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to noise and vibration, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COAs related to construction hours, construction noise reduction, construction noise management, noise reduction plans, and construction vibration, as referenced in the 2023 EIR, would remain applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.

F. If impact pile driving is required, pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.

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

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

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

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 69 Construction Noise Management – Public Notice Required. At least two weeks prior to initiating any construction activities at the site, the applicant shall provide notice to businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site. This notice shall at a minimum provide the following: (1) project description, (2) description of construction activities, (3) daily construction schedule (i.e., time of day) and expected duration (number of months), (4) the name and phone number of the Project Liaison for the project that is responsible for responding to any local complaints, (5) commitment to notify neighbors at least four days in advance of authorized extended work hours and the reason for extended hours, and (6) that construction work is about to commence. The liaison would determine the cause of all construction-related complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, worker parking, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the City for review and approval.

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

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

Conclusion
The City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for construction noise reduction and management and BMC requirements would still be applicable to development under the proposed project. However, even with implementation of these conditions, impacts related to construction noise would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the HEU. Nonetheless, no substantial changes have occurred

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

70 that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to noise than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

5.12 Population and Housing
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of the 2023 EIR, the HEU would add housing sites with a potential for up to 19,098 additional residential units and 47,443 additional residents by the year 2031. The 2023 EIR found that the HEU would be consistent with State requirements for the RHNA and would be within the growth forecasts for Northwest Alameda County in Plan Bay Area 2050, which projected a 57 percent increase in population for Northwest Alameda County. The 2023 EIR found that the HEU would not directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth, and would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing. Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed project would facilitate the development of up to 1,652 additional units in the Southside Area compared to the adopted HEU. Using the 2023 EIR estimate of 2.5 persons per household, the proposed project would increase the number of residents in the Southside Area and in Berkeley by 4,130 people. In the unlikely event that all buildout under the 2023 EIR (47,443 residents) and the proposed project occurs, the total population of the city in 2031 (buildout year of the 2023 HEU) would be 176,136, or a population increase of approximately 41 percent9. Similar to the HEU, the proposed project would facilitate sufficient housing development to meet the City’s RHNA and would be within the growth forecasts for Northwest Alameda County in Plan Bay Area 2050, which projects a 57% increase in population for Northwest Alameda County. Given that the State is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply, the additional units under the proposed project would also assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting the housing needs of the City’s communities.

Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of up to 1,652 more units, the units would be concentrated in the Southside Area which is a TPA, which would help reduce reliance on automotive travel, vehicle miles traveled, and associated GHGs. Future residents would have ample opportunities to utilize alternative modes of transportation and would be able to walk or bicycle to many jobs and services.

Similar to what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR, this analysis is conservative because it assumes a maximum buildout scenario. The proposed project’s actual contribution to population growth may be less than estimated. In addition, the proposed project would not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure that could indirectly lead to population growth. As discussed in Sections 5.13, Public Services and Recreation, and Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the 2023 EIR, the city is mostly developed and is supported by existing public services and infrastructure which are sufficient to serve the additional housing units. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in

9 (47,443 (buildout of HEU) + 4,130 (buildout of proposed project)) / 124,563 (current population in the 2023 EIR) x 100 = 41 percent

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 71 substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant, same as the impact analyzed in the 2023 EIR.

While the adoption of the proposed Southside Zoning Implementation Program would have no direct physical effects, subsequent development allowed by the proposed project could involve the demolition of existing housing units in the Southside Area. Because the addition of up to 1,652 more housing units than analyzed in the 2023 EIR would more than offset the potential loss of housing units, the proposed project would not require the construction of additional housing elsewhere.

Future applicants would be required to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which would require developers of market-rate ownership housing to include affordable ownership units or pay a fee, as well as the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance, which would require developers of market-rate rental housing to pay a fee to the Housing Trust Fund (which is used as funding for affordable housing production) or include affordable units in developments. In addition, SB 330 would require that replacement housing be either rent-controlled or below market rate.

Moreover, deed restrictions may run with individual properties to maintain long-term affordability.

The BMC also places conditions on the loss of housing units and includes tenant protections for displaced residents. Projects that involve demolition or elimination of dwelling units would be subject to BMC Chapter 23.326, which requires that demolition of dwelling units may only be approved if it is found that the elimination of the dwelling units would not be materially detrimental to the housing needs and public interest of the affected neighborhood and the city. Further, BMC Chapter 23.326 includes tenant protections for displaced residences. When demolition of an occupied unit is approved, the project applicant is required to provide assistance with moving expenses and subsidize the rent differential for a comparable replacement unit. If a tenant is displaced due to the owner withdrawing the building from rent or lease or for repairs to bring the unit into compliance, BMC Section 13.77.055 and Chapter 13.84 entitle the tenant to relocation compensation and certain protections. In addition, BMC Section 13.76.130 requires landlords to have good cause for evictions and provide relocation assistance to households as specified in Section 13.76.130A(9). Therefore, similar to the HEU, the proposed project would not result in the net loss or displacement of housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and impacts would be less than significant.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to population and housing, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to population and housing. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to population and housing than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

72 5.13 Public Services and Recreation
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of the 2023 EIR, the HEU would increase demand for fire and police protection services, school facilities, and parks and recreational facilities.

However, compliance with Government Code 65995 (b) as well as policies in the City’s General Plan and BMC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Fire Protection
Fire protection in the city is provided by the Berkeley Fire Department (BFD). The proposed project would facilitate development that would increase population in the Southside Area and in Berkeley by adding the potential for up to 1,652 new units. Using the 2023 EIR estimate of 2.5 persons per household, the proposed project’s changes to the HEU would result in 4,130 new residents in addition to the 47,443 new residents estimated to be added in the HEU as anlayzed in the 2023 EIR.

The additional increase in residents associated with the proposed project could increase demand for fire protection and emergency medical services such that additional staff, equipment or facilities would be needed to meet response time goals. However, future development would be facilitated on non-vacant and underutilized sites in urbanized areas in the Southside Area which are already served by existing fire stations. The BFD Fire Station 5 is located approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the Southside Area, and BFD Fire Station 3 is located approximately 0.4 miles south of the Southside Area. The continued implementation of policies and actions in the Berkeley General Plan would improve the ability of fire protection facilities to serve this additional future development and allow fire protection services to maintain response time goals. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, the BFD has an average response time of five minutes and fifteen seconds (5:15) from when the station receives the call to the first unit arriving on the scene. The median response time is 4:46. Policy S-22 in the City’s Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan calls for the City to provide adequately staffed and equipped Fire Stations and to pursue a response time goal of four minutes from the nearest station to all parts of Berkeley. Although the City’s response time goal of four minutes has not been met, new residential projects would be reviewed for compliance with these requirements and compliance with other building and safety regulations several times during different phases of project development, such as the entitlement and pre-application phase, during the building permit process, and during the construction process. Future development would be required to comply with basic building designs and standards for residential buildings as mandated by the Berkeley Fire Code under BMC Chapter 19.48. In some cases, older buildings not constructed to today’s more stringent levels of fire-safety regulation would be replaced by new buildings compliant with existing regulations, improving fire safety on those sites. Compliance with designs and standards and other fire safety requirements would reduce the demand for fire protection services and thereby reduce the need for new fire stations. Future development would also be required to comply with abatement of fire-related hazards and pre-fire management prescriptions as contained in the California Health and Safety Code and the California Fire PlanThe City’s Measure FF, passed in November 2020, is estimated to generate $8.5 million annually, and would be used to implement a state-of-the-art 911 dispatch system to ensure rapid assistance to emergency medical calls, increase ambulance and paramedic capacity, to better meet the needs of all residents, and strengthen wildfire, earthquake and other disaster prevention and preparedness with new,

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 73 expanded emergency warning systems, fire fuel reduction and evacuation planning. These funds will allow the Fire Department to address increased call volumes and emergency medical service needs that result from city-wide increases in residential density, including the anticipated increase allowed under the proposed project. Future remodeling or expansion of BFD facilities to accommodate new equipment would not be needed to specifically to serve the additional residential units, which would be added incrementally in various locations in the city and served by more than one fire station. Should a new fire station be required, the environmental impacts of constructing a fire station would be consistent with the construction-related impacts discussed in other sections of this Addendum and the 2023 EIR. Should the Fire Department and the City determine that additional facilities are needed to provide fire protection services to the Southside Area, it is not known whether such facilities would be located within the Southside Area or elsewhere in the city. If and when the BFD proposes a new station and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City will conduct a complete a site-specific evaluation of the station’s environmental impacts under CEQA.

Therefore, impacts to fire services would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

Police Protection
Police protection in the city is provided by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD). Although the proposed project would increase potential buildout in the Southside Area compared to what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR by up to 1,652 units, future development would be facilitated on non- vacant and underutilized sites in urbanized areas which are already served by existing police stations. Nonetheless, the additional population growth facilitated by the proposed project could result in an increase in reported incidents, leading to longer response times unless the BPD increases staffing. The Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element, the Transportation Element and the Economic Development & Employment Element of the City’s General Plan include policies that would ensure police services are adequate to accommodate an increase in population. Specifically, Policy S-1 and Action G would ensure that the City’s emergency response plans are current and incorporate the latest information on hazards, vulnerability and resources; Policy T-28 and Action A would ensure emergency access be provided to all parts of the city which would not significantly increase emergency response times or hinder effective evacuation; and Policy ED-4 and Action A would ensure there are adequate levels of police presence in neighborhood and avenue commercial zones. Should the Police Department and the City determine that additional facilities are needed to provide police protection services to the Southside Area, it is not known whether such facilities would be located within the Southside Area or elsewhere in the city. If and when the BPD proposes a new station and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City will conduct a complete a site- specific evaluation of the station’s environmental impacts under CEQA. Therefore, similar to the HEU, impacts to police services would be less than significant.

Schools
As discussed in the 2023 EIR, in a study prepared for Berkeley Unified School District’s (BUSD) adopted School Facilities Fee on new residential and commercial/industrial development, the District used a blended student generation rate of 0.191 for all housing types (BUSD 2016). Based on this generation rate, development under the proposed project would add an estimated total of 316 new students over time. However, this number is highly conservative, and it is assumed that many of the new housing units would be occupied by University students and would not house school- aged children, since one of the primary goals of the proposed project is to create additional housing at appropriate locations to help meet the housing demand for students, thus taking advantage of proximity to the University. Nonetheless, the proposed project could encourage housing that would

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

74 add more school-aged children to BUSD schools. These students would be distributed throughout the schools that serve Berkeley depending on their grade level, their location, and their school preferences. The addition of 316 students under the proposed project in addition to the 3,648 new students under the HEU would result in an increase of 42 percent compared to the BUSD enrollment of 9,409 students in the 2020-21 school year (Ed-Data.org 2022). However, as discussed in the 2023 EIR, future development facilitated by proposed project would be required to pay school impact fees pursuant to Section 65995(3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), which BUSD would use to maintain the desired school capacity and the maintenance and/or development of new school facilities. Therefore, impacts related to school capacity would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

Parks and Recreation
Similar to the HEU, the proposed project would not include the provision of new parks or the physical alteration of existing parks or recreation centers. Full buildout of the proposed project would further increase the number of residents in the Southside Area compared to the HEU by 4,130 people, which would increase the use of parks and recreational facilities. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, the ratio of parkland per resident is approximately 25.5 acres per 1,000 residents.

Although the proposed project would decrease the ratio of parkland per resident from 25.5 acres per 1,000 residents to 24.9 acres per 1,000 residents10, in accordance with General Plan policies, the City continually evaluates and plans for expansion or renovations of parks and recreation facilities as need to accommodate demand. Compliance with General Plan policies, particularly Policies OS-1, OS-2, OS-6, would ensure park facilities are kept up to date and park acreage to population ratio is maintained within Berkeley. Compliance with General Plan policies and actions would potentially result in development of new recreational opportunities including parks. Should future park or recreational facilities be identified for construction, it is not known where such facilities would be located. If and when the Parks Department proposes new facilities and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City will conduct an evaluation of the site-specific environmental impacts of the new park or recreation facility under CEQA. In addition, it is assumed that the majority of future housing in the Southside Area would service University students and staff who would have access to recreational opportunities such as pools, gyms, open space, and other recreational programs associated with the University campus. Future residents would also be able to access existing City parks and regional recreational facilities; including the Bay Trail and Eastshore State Park and Tilden Regional Park and Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial overuse of existing City parks which may cause physical deterioration of these facilities or require the construction or expansion of facilities which may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, impacts related to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to public services and recreation, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to public services and recreation. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR.

10 (4,391 acres of parkland x 1,000) / 176,136 people = 24.9 acres per 1,000 residents.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 75 There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to public services and recreation than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

5.14 Transportation
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, of the 2023 EIR, the HEU would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Although the HEU would increase ridership for AC Transit and BART, AC Transit and BART monitor and plan for anticipated changes in local and regional ridership levels and increased demand through their ongoing evaluation of routes, schedules, ridership, and capacity availability. The HEU would also be consistent with the City’s 2017 Bicycle Plan and development would be required to provide long-term and short-term bicycle parking in accordance with BMC Section 23.322.090 as well as meet applicable requirements for pedestrian access under BMC Section 23.304.100.

The 2023 EIR found that the HEU would decrease VMT per capita by 3 percent, from 11.22 to 10.86, which would be below the City of Berkeley VMT threshold of 19.38 (15 percent below regional average household VMT per capita of 22.80). Therefore, VMT impacts were found to be less than significant.

As found in the 2023 EIR, the HEU would not include hazardous geometric design features or incompatible uses, and circulation components and geometric design features for individual projects would be reviewed by the City Engineering division and would be in accordance with all applicable City standards and the building plan check process to minimize design hazards. Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant.

The HEU also would not result in inadequate emergency access. The 2023 EIR determined that development under the HEU would be required to comply with basic building designs and standards for residential buildings as mandated by the Berkeley Fire Code, under BMC Chapter 19.48. As a part of development review, representatives from several City departments and representatives, including the Building and Safety Division, the Transportation Division, and the Fire Department, would review the entitlement plan set to ensure compliance with egress requirements and other fire safety features. Individual projects would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth in the most current adopted building codes and fire and life safety standards. Compliance with these standards is ensured through the City review and building plan check process. Based on the preceding, impacts related to emergency access were found to be less than significant.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed project would allow for up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area, which is an area served by BART and AC Transit, compared to the adopted HEU and therefore would increase the transit ridership for AC Transit and BART. However, AC Transit and BART monitor and plan for anticipated changes in local and regional ridership levels and increased demand through their ongoing evaluation of routes, schedules, ridership, and capacity availability. Therefore, similar to the

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

76 HEU, the proposed project would not conflict with AC Transit’s or BART’s ongoing efforts for facility improvement or capital improvement project planning.

The proposed project would concentrate development in the Southside Area, which is a TPA, and would place residents in proximity to jobs, services, and transit, which would encourage walking, bicycling, and the use of alternative modes of transportation. Future development would be reviewed in accordance with the City’s Public Works Department Transportation Program standards, and the department would provide oversight engineering review to ensure that the project is constructed according to City standards. Thus, the proposed project would also be consistent with the City’s 2017 Bicycle Plan. The proposed project does not include modifications to the public right- of-way and, therefore, would not preclude the installation of the planned or proposed bicycle facilities on the streets in the city. Development facilitated by the proposed project would provide long-term and short-term bicycle parking in accordance with BMC Section 23.322.090 requirements to accommodate the bicycle parking demand generated by the project residents and would also be required to meet applicable requirements for pedestrian access under BMC Section 23.304.100 or other requirements as applicable. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Bicycle Master Plan or the City’s Pedestrian Plan, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the adopted HEU.

As discussed in the 2023 EIR, the City of Berkeley has adopted thresholds to evaluate significant impacts for VMT. For residential uses, the City of Berkeley adopted a threshold of significance for VMT analysis based on the guidance from OPR that a residential project’s VMT impact is considered less than significant if its household VMT per capita is at least 15 percent below the regional average household VMT per capita. Therefore, an increase in VMT per capita above 19.38 VMT (15 percent below the regional average of 22.80) would be considered a significant impact. VMT was calculated for the proposed project by Kittelson & Associates in June 2023 (see Appendix A). Table 10 summarizes the VMT for the applicable threshold, 2020 baseline, the adopted HEU, and the proposed project. As shown in Table 10, the proposed project would result in a decreased VMT per capita in comparison to the baseline 2020 condition and to the adopted HEU. Residential VMT per capita would decrease by 5 percent, from 11.22 to 10.61, compared to the baseline 2020 condition, and by 2 percent, from 10.86 to 10.61, compared to the HEU. These reductions indicate that the future residential development would provide more opportunities for residents and employees to access jobs and services within the City within shorter distances and by modes other than vehicle.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in VMT per capita below applicable thresholds and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

Table 10 VMT Results Summary
Units Bay Area Region Berkeley 2020
Adopted HEU
(2031)
Proposed Project
(2031)
Population 7,915,267 128,004 182,651 186,771
Residential VMT 180,468,151 1,436,244 1,983,715 1,982,372 Household VMT Per Capita 22.80 11.22 10.86 10.61
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2023 (Appendix A)
Similar to the HEU, the proposed project’s changes would only include residential development, and would not include hazardous geometric design features or incompatible uses. Each housing application would be evaluated at the project-specific level. Circulation components and geometric design features would be reviewed by the City Engineering division and would be in accordance with

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 77 all applicable City standards and the building plan check process to minimize design hazards. Design review standards include standards for project access points, location, design, sight lines, roadway modifications, provisions for bicycle and pedestrian transportation connections, and emergency access. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with basic building designs and standards for residential buildings as mandated by the Berkeley Fire Code, pursuant to BMC Chapter 19.48. As part of the development review process, representatives from several City departments and representatives, including the Building and Safety Division, the Transportation Division, and the Fire Department, would review the proposed development plan set to ensure compliance with emergency access requirements and other fire safety features. Future projects would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth in the most current building codes and fire and life safety standards, which would reduce impacts related to emergency access. Therefore, as was found in the 2023 EIR, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to safety hazards and emergency access.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to transportation and circulation, and no new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to transportation. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to transportation than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

5.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the 2023 EIR, ground-disturbing activities associated with the HEU could expose and adversely affect previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as tribal cultural resources. However, impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s Standard COAs related to archaeological resources and human remains set forth above under Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, as well as Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU and would require tribal cultural monitoring.

Impacts of the Proposed project
Based on the results of AB 52 and SB 18 consultation conducted as part of preparation of the 2023 EIR, tribal cultural resources were found to be potentially present in areas near the waterfront and near Indian Rock. Although the proposed project would increase potential buildout in the Southside Area compared to what was analyzed in the 2023 EIR by up to 1,652 units, development facilitated by the proposed project would be concentrated in the Southside Area and would not be within the areas sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Therefore, similar to what was concluded in the 2023 EIR, it can be assumed that no tribal cultural resources have been identified. Nonetheless, similar to the HEU, ground-disturbing activities associated with individual development projects under the

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

78 proposed project could expose previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as tribal cultural resources and could be adversely affected by construction. Future projects subject to CEQA and SB 35 would require project-specific tribal cultural resource identification and consultation and incorporation of the appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation identified through the consultation process. In addition, the City’s Standard COA related to the protection of archaeological resources and human remains (including remains that are determined to be of Native American origin) would apply to future development. In addition to the City’s Standard COAs related to the protection of archaeological resources and human remains set forth in full in Addendum Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, previously adopted Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would be required to be implemented and would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources a less than significant level.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to air quality, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COAs related to archaeological resources and human remains, set forth above in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, which apply to the HEU as a whole, would remain applicable. Previously adopted 2023 EIR Mitigation Measure TCR-1 also would remain applicable and would continue to be implemented and monitored.

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

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with mitigation with respect to tribal cultural resources. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 79

5.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the 2023 EIR, HEU would increase water demand in the City by an estimated 0.96 MGD, or approximately 0.5 percent, above the 2030 EBMUD water service area demand estimate of 190 MGD. The increase of 0.5 percent from the projected 2030 water demand in EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) would also increase the gallons per capita per day (GPCD) from 121 GPCD to 127 GPCD. However, this would still be well below the EBMUD service area water reduction goal of 153 GPCD by 2020. Therefore, EBMUD infrastructure and facilities would have adequate capacity to service the HEU, and construction and operation of development facilitated by the HEU would not require new or expanded water supply facilities. With demand management during multi-year droughts, as required by EBMUD, impacts of HEU related to water supply would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the 2023 EIR, the HEU would generate approximately 765,688 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. EBMUD projects that 61 mgd of wastewater will be collected and treated in the EBMUD Special District No.1 by 2040. Therefore, the HEU would generate approximately 1.3 percent of the wastewater collected and treated in in the district by 2040. The increased wastewater generation would be within the remaining capacity of EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP), and the plant’s existing wastewater treatment capacity would be sufficient to accommodate the increase in population facilitated by the HEU. Additionally, as discussed in the 2023 EIR, although the construction of new or expanded sewer mains may be necessary to accommodate additional wastewater flow, development would be required to comply with the City’s Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance (BMC Section 17.24.130) (City of Berkeley 2023c) and impacts related to individual new sewer main construction projects would be less than significant due to their temporary nature, adherence to existing requirements, and the already developed nature of wastewater conveyance corridors. Development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with BMC Title 17 which establishes City standards related to wastewater discharge, peak flow, and sewer capacity. Every person, firm, corporation or entity desiring to construct a new connection to sewer services to the City’s sanitary sewer system would be required to pay a connection fee in the amount as established by City Council resolution. With adherence to City regulations and General Plan policies, impacts related to wastewater conveyance and the construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities were found to be less than significant.

As discussed in the 2023 EIR, existing stormwater infrastructure, electricity and natural gas facilities, and telecommunications infrastructure would be able to accommodate the increased demand under the HEU, and the construction or relation of facilities would be required.

Lastly, the 2023 EIR found that the HEU would generate 23.7 cubic yards of solid waste per day or 8,651 cubic yards of solid waste per year, which would be 0.013 percent of the total remaining capacity of 65.4 million cubic yards of the Altamont Landfill. Therefore, impacts to solid wastes were found to be less than significant.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Similar to the HEU, the proposed project would facilitate development on non-vacant or infill sites within the city that are already served by existing utility infrastructure. New water service connections would be consistent with utility connections in urbanized areas, such that minimal

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

80 areas of new disturbance would occur. Although virtually all parcels in Berkeley have access to public utility infrastructure, in some cases the infrastructure is older and in need of replacement or insufficient to meet the needs of a particular project. Future developers would be responsible for funding infrastructure improvements that are required to serve future projects and have not been previously identified as part of a capital improvement program covered by development impact fees. Consistent with applicable State law, the City’s development fees ensure that the developers pay the cost attributable to the increased demand for the affected public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to ensure that existing facilities are able to maintain the existing level of service and achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the City’s General Plan (California Government Code Section 66001(g)). The proposed project could increase the number of units in the Southside Area by up to 1,652 units compared to the HEU, which could result in increased demands on water supply. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, the adopted HEU has a projected 2031 water demand of 0.96 MGD. Based on the water generation factor of 50 gpd per unit for multi-family residential uses used in the 2023 EIR, the proposed project would result in an increase in projected water demand by 82,600 gpd, or 0.08 MGD, resulting in a total projected 2031 water demand of 1.04 MGD.11 The 1.04 MGD increase in water demand would result in a 0.54 percent increase from the 2030 EBMUD service area demand estimate of 190 MGD, which would be a small increase from the 0.51 percent increase from the HEU. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, the EBMUD service area has a water reduction goal of 153 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) by 2020, and in 2020 the MPWD reported its GPCD was 121 GPCD which met the target. Based on the increase of approximately 0.5 percent from the projected 2030 water demand in EMBUD’s UWMP, estimated GPCD with implementation of the proposed project would be 127 GPCD, which would still be well below the targeted 153 GPCD. Future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with water conservation regulations and policies which would help maintain sufficient supplies, such as California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen), the State’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO), EBMUD’s Section 31, and Bay-friendly landscaping. Therefore, similar to the HEU, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve development facilitated by the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) provides wastewater collection and treatment to Berkeley, currently treating an average daily flow of approximately 63 mgd. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, EBMUD projects that 61 mgd of wastewater will be collected and treated in the EBMUD Special District No.1 by 2040. Applying the same wastewater generation factor for multi-family residential development of 40 gpd per unit as the 2023 EIR, the proposed project would generate an additional 66,080 gpd of wastewater, for a total of 831,768 gpd of wastewater when combined with the adopted HEU.12 This would be approximately 1.4 percent of the wastewater collected and treated in the district by 2040, which would be an insignificant increase from the 1.3 percent increase projected in the 2023 EIR for the adopted HEU as a whole. New development would be required to comply with the City’s Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance, by eliminating wet- weather infiltration and inflow to private sewer laterals, which would regulate wet-weather contribution from the proposed project. Although construction of new or expanded sewer mains may be necessary to accommodate additional wastewater flow, the precise sizing of new wastewater conveyance pipes would be determined at the time of installation and would be subject to the approval of the City to ensure that the system would be adequate. The impacts of sewer main construction projects would be less than significant due to their temporary nature, adherence to existing requirements, and the already developed nature of wastewater conveyance corridors.

11 0.96 MGD (adopted HEU) + 0.08 MGD (proposed project) = 1.04 MGD (total water demand) 12 765,688 gpd (adopted HEU) + 66,080 gpd (proposed project) = 831,768 gpd

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 81 Impacts of construction of projects facilitated by the proposed project are analyzed comprehensively throughout this Addendum and the 2023 EIR (within Section 5.2, Air Quality; 5.3, Biological Resources; 5.4, Cultural Resources; 5.6, Geology and Soils; 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; 5.11, Noise; and 5.14, Transportation, 5.15, Tribal Cultural Resources). Future development facilitated by the proposed project would also be required to comply with BMC Title 17 which establishes City standards related to wastewater discharge, peak flow, and sewer capacity, and future applicants desiring to construct a new connection the City’s sanitary sewer system would be required to pay a connection fee in the amount as established by City Council resolution. Therefore, similar to the HEU, impacts related to wastewater would be less than significant.

Impacts regarding stormwater drainage facilities are discussed in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Addendum. As discussed in that section, the proposed project would be required to comply with existing State and local laws and regulations, which would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the HEU. Although the proposed project would allow for up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area compared to the adopted HEU, new development would be served by existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure, and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in the 2023 EIR, the Altamont Landfill is an active landfill that can accommodate solid waste from Berkeley. This landfill has a combined remaining capacity of approximately 65.4 million cubic yards. Using the same waste generation rate of 4 pounds per unit per day as the 2023 EIR, the proposed project would generate an estimated 6,608 pounds per day of waste, or 6.6 cubic yards per day of waste. Assuming a 69 percent diversion rate, which the City of Berkeley has achieved and that exceeds the State requirement of 50 percent diversion, the proposed project would generate an estimated 2,048 pounds per day of waste, or 2 cubic yards per day of waste. This would equate to a total of 25,730 pounds per day of waste,13 or 25.7 cubic yards per day of waste14 when combined with the adopted HEU. This equates to 9,381 cubic yards of waste per year, which represents 0.014 percent of the current total remaining landfill capacity, which is an insignificant increase compared to the 0.013 percent as analyzed in the 2023 EIR for the adopted HEU.

Therefore, impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant, similar to the HEU.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to utilities and service systems, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to utilities and service systems than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

13 23,682 pounds per day (HEU) + 6,608 pounds per day (proposed project) = 25,730 pounds per day 14 23.7 cubic yards per day (HEU) + 2 cubic yards per day (proposed project) = 25.7 cubic yards per day

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

82 5.17 Wildfire
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.17, Wildfire, of the 2023 EIR, 82 units of the HEU would be located in Fire Zones 2 and 3, which are considered Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). The HEU would also facilitate increased residential development in the R-1, R-2, and R-2A districts, which include portions within the VHFHSZ. Development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s Standard COA to prepare a Transportation Construction Plan, which would limit the extent to which development would impair or physically interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation procedures. Development also would be required to comply with existing City regulations and prepare a Fire Protection Plan for housing projects in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, which would reduce the potential to exacerbate wildfire risk during construction and after projects are constructed. This would also reduce the severity of potential impacts related to exposure to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the likelihood of wildfire ignition. Furthermore, the BMC requires site-specific geotechnical investigations which would reduce potential impacts related to landslides, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes following a potential wildfire for individual future development projects. Nonetheless, for some development projects, impacts may result from the potential for unusual site-specific or road conditions, project characteristics, and the general ongoing fire risk in the Berkeley Hills; therefore, impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.

The 2023 EIR found that new development could require the installation and maintenance of new or improved roads, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities, the construction and operation of which could introduce potential sources of wildfire ignition, such as the sparking of an overhead power line or construction equipment or the operation of resident vehicles. Although Mitigation Measure W-1, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU and would reduce potential risks by requiring power lines to be placed underground in areas subject to wildfire risk, it may not be feasible to impose the requirement on all projects. Potentially unusual site-specific conditions or aspects of a specific infrastructure project, including power line installation, may result in wildfire impacts from the installation or maintenance of infrastructure required by build out of the HEU. Therefore, this impact was also found to be significant and unavoidable.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The City of Berkeley has incorporated Cal Fire’s LRA map into its identification of fire hazard three zones within City limits (BMC Section 19.28.030):
▪ Zone 1 encompasses the portions of the City not designated within Cal Fire’s VHFHSZ. ▪ Zone 2 encompasses the portions of the City designated within the VHFHSZ and the Combined Hillside District.
▪ Zone 3 encompasses those areas designated in the VHFHSZ and the Environmental Safety-- Residential Zoning District (ES-R). The BMC provides the following description the ES-R District:
“Because of its substandard vehicular access, steep slopes, inadequate water pressure and proximity to the Hayward Fault and vegetated wildlands, the Panoramic Hill area is exceptionally vulnerable to severe damage or destruction from fire and earthquake hazards” (Section 23.202.070(A)(1)).

Figure 10 shows the fire hazard areas in and near the Southside Area.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 83 Figure 10 Fire Hazard Zones in and near the Southside Area

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

84 Areas within zones 2 and 3 encompass the City’s Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, an area designated as a significant risk from wildfires (BMC Section 19.28.030) and a VHFHSZ. As shown in Figure 10, the portion of the Southside Area that is east of College Avenue is within Zone 2, a VHFHSZ. Moreover, Zone 3 abuts the Southside Area at its eastern edge.

The proposed project would allow for the development of up to 1,652 more units in the Southside Area compared to the HEU, which could result in an increased number of residents exposed to wildfire risks. However, there are several streets in the Southside Area that are designated as emergency access routes to move people and emergency response equipment in a disaster, and traffic increase that would result from new development in the Southside Area would not substantially impact one route and would be distributed among existing routes. College Avenue, Bancroft Way, Dwight Way, and Piedmont Avenue are all designated emergency access routes which provide connections between parcels within the VHFHSZ to other areas of the city. Moreover, several City regulations would ensure that the access routes within the VHFHSZ would remain available in the event of an emergency, including evacuations during wildfire. General Plan Policy T- 28 identifies required actions to preserve emergency access, including not installing diverters or speed humps on streets identified as Emergency Access and Evacuation Routes. BMC Section

19.28.030 prohibits storage of materials or structures, including construction equipment, at public access roads within the VHFHSZ. Similar to the HEU, the proposed project would also be subject to the City’s Standard COA related to preparation of a Transportation Construction Plan which would limit the extent to which development would impair or physically interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation procedures. Therefore, while traffic increases associated with buildout facilitated by the proposed project would affect streets within the Southside Area, designated access routes would still serve as evacuation routes in case of emergency. Future development would also be required to conform to the latest fire code requirements, including provisions for emergency access. Nonetheless, the proposed project would result in an increased number of residents in the Southside Area and in Zone 2, a VHFHSZ, which could further inhibit safe evacuation and potentially interfere with emergency response. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the HEU.

The Southside Area is urbanized, largely consisting of concrete roads, driveways, parking lots, and structures. Existing vegetation within the Southside Area that could provide fuel for a wildfire is minimal. However, wildfires may potentially occur in wildland and open space areas east of the Southside Area and spread to the Southside Area. In addition, the new housing allowed under the proposed project would introduce new potential ignition sources in the form of building materials (e.g., wood, stucco), vegetation for landscaping, vehicles, and small machinery (e.g., for typical residential and landscape maintenance). The proposed project could therefore expose greater numbers of Southside occupants to pollutant concentrations or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire.

In addition, new development facilitated by the proposed project would require the installation and maintenance of infrastructure, such as new power lines, which could exacerbate fire risk. However, new development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code, and all development within the VHFHSZ would be required to comply with BMC Section 19.28.030, which provides additional regulations to reduce fire hazards, including requirements related to materials of roofing and coverings for exposed utility connections, alarm and fire sprinkler systems, and control of brush and vegetation. BMC Section 19.28.030 also requires that all new utilities serving new construction, including electrical, telephone, and cable television, be installed underground. The continued implementation of previously adopted 2023 EIR Mitigation Measure W-1 would also ensure that new power drops are placed underground in areas subject to wildfire risk. Moreover, development facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to review

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the HEU

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 85 by the Berkeley Fire Department (BFD) prior to approval of building permits. The BFD’s review would ensure that new construction would comply with applicable fire codes and regulations and would not exacerbate wildfire risk within the Southside Area. Nonetheless, similar to what was discussed in the 2023 EIR, because new development facilitated by the proposed project would occur as infill in previously developed areas in a VHFHSZ, increased risk associated with new development may occur should new development require the installation and maintenance of new or improved roads, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities. Therefore, even with adherence to State and local regulations as well as continued implementation of previously adopted Mitigation Measure W-1, potentially unusual site-specific conditions or aspects of the infrastructure project, including power line installation, may result in wildfire impacts from the installation or maintenance of infrastructure required by build out facilitated by the proposed project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the HEU.

Because the Southside Area is highly urbanized, development facilitated by the proposed project would not introduce new impervious areas to the extent that the rate or amount of surface runoff would substantially increase. In addition, the Southside Area is relatively flat. However, the portion of the Southside Area east of College Avenue has greater slopes and is within the Hillside Overlay zone. Therefore, development facilitated by the proposed project could expose people and structures to landslides by encouraging development in the hillsides in a VHFHSZ where landslides could occur and could be exacerbated after a wildfire. The City requires a Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Investigation for all development projects located in a State-designated Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction, landslide, or earthquake fault rupture, as defined by the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and shown on the “Environmental Constraints Map,” sites in the VHFHSZ would be required to prepare a site-specific geotechnical investigation. This would involve identifying the degree of potential hazards, providing design parameters for the project based on the hazard, and describing appropriate design measures to address hazards. Future development would be required to adhere to such recommendations to mitigated landslide hazards. Nonetheless, because of the hillside slopes on the eastern part of the Southside Area, landslide susceptibility, and wildfire susceptibility, development under the proposed project potentially exposes people and structures to significant risks, including landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the HEU.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to wildfire, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COA requiring preparation of a Transportation Construction Plan, as referenced in the 2023 EIR and shown below, would remain applicable.

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

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

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

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

Previously-adopted Mitigation Measure W-1 set forth in the 2023 EIR and below would also remain applicable and would and would continue to be implemented and monitored.

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

Conclusion
Similar to the HEU, even with continued implementation of previously-adopted Mitigation Measure W-1 and the City’s Standard COA for a Transportation Construction Plan, wildfire impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Nonetheless, no substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to wildfire than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

Cumulative Impacts

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 87 6 Cumulative Impacts
In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, CEQA requires consideration of 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 past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts. 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. The 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.

Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
The cumulative setting for the analysis in the 2023 EIR is explained in Section 3, Environmental Setting, of the 2023 EIR. As stated in that section, some analyses including air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and population and housing rely on larger geographic areas, such as the Bay Area region. For issues that may have regional cumulative effects, the cumulative impact analysis in the 2023 EIR was 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. Development under the HEU 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 UC Berkeley’s LRDP and Housing Projects #1 and #2 as described in the University’s Draft EIR dated March 8, 2021 (University of California, Berkeley 2021). The 2021 LRDP 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 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.

Cumulative impacts associated with the HEU in combination with cumulative development were analyzed Sections 4.1 through 4.17 of the 2023 EIR. The 2023 EIR found that cumulative development pursuant to the HEU 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. The HEU would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources. Implementation of previously-adopted Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, which were adopted and incorporated into the HEU, would reduce or avoid some but not all potential impacts to historical resources in Berkeley. Therefore, cumulative

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

88 impacts to historical resources would be significant, and the HEU’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable.

According to the Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management Element, noise-sensitive uses include but are not limited to residences, child-care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes (City of Berkeley 2001). The 2023 EIR found that construction of future development projects in Berkeley would produce temporary noise impacts that would be localized to a project site and could affect noise-sensitive receptors within the immediate vicinity. Therefore, only sensitive receptors located in proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected by each activity. However, construction activities associated with individual housing development projects accommodated under the HEU may overlap for some time with construction activities for other development projects. Based on the locations of the potential housing sites included in the HEU and shown in Figure 2-4 of Section 2, Project Description, of the 2023 EIR this could substantially increase noise levels at specific neighboring noise-sensitive receivers since many sites are located in proximity to each other. Therefore, concurrent construction of development projects facilitated by the HEU could result in cumulatively considerable impacts. This impact would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The 2023 EIR also found that in and near Berkeley, the VHFHSZs are located largely along the WUI borders within the hilly northwestern areas. Within the geographic scope for this cumulative analysis wildfire-related impacts could be significant if development is in or near Berkeley’s VHFHSZ.

The University’s proposed LRDP update would involve improvements and development in Campus Park, the Hill Campus West, the Hill Campus East, the Clark Kerr Campus, and the City Environs Properties, areas of which fall within the VHFHSZ. Development within this area could exacerbate wildfire risks. Like development under the HEU, new development under the LRDP would be subject to statewide standards for fire safety in the California Fire Code. Nonetheless, because the proposed HEU could exacerbate wildfire risk in a VHFHSZ and development under the proposed LRDP update could also exacerbate such risks, a cumulative impact would occur and the proposed projects’ contribution would be cumulative considerable.

For all other impact areas, the 2023 EIR found that the HEU would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Because the conditions in the 2023 EIR are substantially the same as the current conditions in the city and region, the cumulative setting in the 2023 EIR has not changed and remains the same for the purposes of this analysis. The proposed project would not result in new impacts compared to the HEU as analyzed in the 2023 EIR. Like the HEU, the proposed project would result in impacts related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire, and also would result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire, even with implementation of previously adopted Mitigation Measure CUL-1, Mitigation Measure CUL-2, and Mitigation Measure W-1, as well as the City’s Standard COAs related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire. Similar to the HEU, the proposed project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts related to all other impact areas with adherence to State and local regulations as well as the City’s Standard COAs; therefore, the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact.

Cumulative Impacts

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 89 Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to cumulative impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have cumulatively considerable impacts related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire, and less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to all other impact areas. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to cumulative impacts than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

90 This page intentionally left blank.

Conclusion

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 91 7 Conclusion
As discussed in detail in the preceding sections, potential impacts associated with the proposed project are consistent with potential impacts disclosed in the 2023 EIR. Major revisions to the 2023 EIR are not required, because no new significant impacts or significant impacts of substantially greater severity than previously described would occur because of the proposed project. Therefore, the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(3)(A) and (D) for preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be met.

Based on the analysis contained in this Addendum, the following determinations are applicable:
▪ No further evaluation of environmental impacts is required for the proposed project. ▪ No subsequent EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. ▪ This Addendum is the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation for the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), the decisionmaking body of the City will consider this Addendum along with the 2023 EIR prior to making a decision on the proposed project. Documents related to this Addendum will be available at the City of Berkeley Planning & Development Department, located at 1947 Center Street in Berkeley, California 94704.

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

92 This page intentionally left blank.

References and Preparers

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 93 8 References and Preparers

8.1 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2012. California Environmental Quality Act:

Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. May 2012.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-ceqa- guidelines_final_may-2012.pdf
______. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en
______. 2023. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines- 2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-0-cover-page-pdf.pdf?la=en Berkeley, City of. 2001. General Plan. https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/adopted- plans/general-plan
______. 2011. Southside Plan. Adopted September 27, 2011. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
03/Southside%20Plan_adopted%20with%20changes%209-27-11.pdf ______. 2019. 2019 Local Hazard mitigation Plan. Adopted December 10, 2019. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-2019.pdf ______. 2023a. City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/general-plan- and-area-plans/housing-element-update
______. 2023b. Hazardous Materials Business Plan website. https://berkeleyca.gov/doing- business/operating-berkeley/hazardous-materials-business-plan ______. 2023c. Private Sewer Lateral website. https://berkeleyca.gov/city-services/streets- sidewalks-sewers-and-utilities/private-sewer-lateral
Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD). 2016. School Facility Fee Justification Report for Residential, Commercial & Industrial Development Projects for the Berkeley Unified School District.

Berkeley, CA. September 2016. https://www.berkeleyschools.net/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/Berkeley-USD-Level-I-2016-FINAL-10-10-2016.pdf California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Traffic Volumes. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census/traffic-volumes California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2023. California Accidental Release Prevention Program. https://calepa.ca.gov/california-accidental-release-prevention/ Ed-data.org. 2022. “District Summary, Berkeley Unified.” https://www.ed- data.org/district/Alameda/Berkeley-Unified

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

94 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf
Graymer, R.W. 2000. Geologic map and map database of the Oakland metropolitan area, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2342, scale 1:50,000.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2019. Noise and Vibration Impacts from Residences Proposed at 325 Yolanda Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA. January 2019. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/251916- 2/attachment/m3VESve0Ky6z2njk58vk2yOfZP3inTgJtvC2_VPKqE0Ple__ZYeJyIgz1Vy_7PGcsn 5TXsIqZP49OpMG0
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2021. Transit Priority Area map viewer. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance- manual-preparation-health-risk-0
Paleobiology Database. 2022. Online fossil locality database. Available online:
https://www.paleobiodb.org/#/.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. CAL Cleaners. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=SL0600109570 University of California, Berkeley. 2021. Long Range Development Plan and Housing Projects #1 and #2 Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse # 2020040078. https://lrdp.berkeley.edu/environmental-review
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2022. UCMP online database specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1981. Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Alameda County, California, Western Part, March, 1981.
_____. 2017. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey of Alameda County, California, April 11, 2018.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. National Wetlands Inventory. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/

8.2 List of Preparers
Rincon prepared this addendum under contract to the City of Berkeley. Persons and firms involved in data gathering, analysis, project management, and quality control include:

References and Preparers

Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report 95 Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal-in-Charge
Karly Kaufman, MESM, Project Manager
Nichole Yee, Environmental Planner
Josh Carman, INCE-USA, Director – Noise, Air Quality, and GHG Gina Gerlich, MSci, GIS Analyst
Debra Jane Seltzer, Publishing Department Manager
Yaritza Ramirez, Publishing Specialist

City of Berkeley
Southside Zoning Implementation Program

96 This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A
Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Assessment Memorandum

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum

INTRODUCTION
Kittelson and Associates (Kittelson) has prepared this vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact assessment for the Addendum to the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report (Housing Element Update EIR) for the Southside Zoning Implementation Program . Similar to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update EIR, Kittelson conducted the travel demand modeling with the Southside upzoning using the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) Countywide Model. The VMT assessment is based on the SB 743 requirements and City of Berkeley VMT Guidelines.

Overall, t he Housing Element Update EIR assumes development of up to 19,098 units located within 106 selected traffic analysis zones (TAZs) around the City. Of these units, 1,000 were assumed to be located in the Southside area associated with the proposed zoning modifications to facilitate housing development in the Southside. This Addendum assumes an additional 1,652 units added to the Southside to reflect additional residential development capacity that would be feasible under the proposed zoning modifications. Travel forecasts were prepared for both existing 20 20 model year and future 2040 cumulative model year conditions. Since the year 2031 represents the Housing Element buildout, VMT for year 2031 was interpolated between 2020 and 2040.

VMT results were extracted at the citywide level based on the efficiency metric, VMT p er Capita and total VMT. Per SB 743 and City VMT guidelines, the results were compared to the Bay Area regionwide average to determine if the additional housing units contribute to any more VMT impacts beyond those disclosed under the Housing Element Update EIR.

The results indicate the overall effect on VMT of adding 1,652 additional units in the Southside in the locations identified by the TAZs within the Southside is to shorten average trip lengths, reduce auto trips by promoting mode choice to transit -related modes, and contribute to a reduction in VMT per capita for the City under both 2020 plus project and 2040 plus cumulative plus project conditions. While many of the Southside sites are near transit opportunities and may screen out for VMT and other effects at the individual project level, Kittelson evaluated the full Housing Element Update at the programmatic level using an overall systemwide VMT assessment, i.e., considering all the TAZs within the city for evaluating the VMT impacts. 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
July 18, 2023 Project# 29096
To: Karly Kaufman
Rincon Consultants
449 25th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
From: Anusha Musunuru, Damian Stefanakis, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CC: Ashley James, City of Berkeley
RE: City of Berkeley Southside Zoning Implementation Program Housing Element Addendum – Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Impact Assessment Memorandum – FINAL

July 18, 2023 Page 2
City of Berkeley Southside Zoning Implementation Program Housing Element VMT Impact Assessment Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

VMT THRESHOLDS
VMT thresholds are defined using recommendations from the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) based on their final report, dated December 2018. Cities and counties could opt to develop their own methods, but the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impact criteria are generally consistent with OPR recommendations. The City of Berkeley’s VMT Criteria and Thresholds were developed and published on June 29, 2020 .1 This CEQA analysis is based on the City policy and suppl emented with OPR recommendations (where applicable and necessary).

The City of Berkeley has opted to compare VMT to the Bay Area regionwide average. Based on OPR and City guidelines, any development that does not immediately screen out for a VMT per capita assessment should produce a VMT per capita of 15% less than the baseline Bay Area regionwide average.

In the City of Berkeley, the screening criteria used to evaluate whether a housing project could qualify for an Exemption under CEQA related to VMT impacts include the following:

1. Within ½ mile of BART and Amtrak stations,

2. Within ¼ mile of high-quality transit corridor, which has 15-minute frequency fixed-route bus service,

3. Contains 100% affordable housing,

4. All projects (housing related) expected to generate less than 836 daily VMT (usually around 20 residential units), and

5. All projects located in TAZs with household VMT per capita of 15% below the baseline regional average.

VMT RESULTS
For Berkeley, VMT metrics are compared to the Bay Area regionwide average, and an impact is assessed if the project VMT per capita (VMT/Population) is higher than the established threshold of 15% below the regionwide average. At the aggregate level, Table 1 through Table 3 indicates that the Housing Element Update projects overall VMT per capita lower than 15% below the regionwide average ( 10.32 vs 19.30 in 2020, 10.61 vs 19.09 in 2031, and 10.84 vs 18.96 in 2040), and in aggregate is less than significant and therefore screens out the project from further VMT analysis and evaluation under CEQA. No mitigations for VMT are therefore recommended at the programmatic level.

Tables of the VMT analysis are summarized below.
• Table 1 provides a summary of 2020 VMT per capita at the City, County, and Regionwide level. • Table 2 provides a summary of 2040 VMT per capita at the City, County, and Regionwide level. • Table 3 provides a summary of 2031 VMT per capita at the City, County, and Regionwide level.

1 City of Berkeley VMT Criteria and Thresholds, June 2020. Link: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/VMT- Criteria-and-Thresholds.pdf

July 18, 2023 Page 3
City of Berkeley Southside Zoning Implementation Program Housing Element VMT Impact Assessment Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 1. 2020 City, County, and Regionwide VMT per Capita Scenario Households Population VMT VMT/Capita 15% Below 2020 No-Project
City 52,293 128,004 1,436,244 11.22
County 620,008 1,720,139 33,432,049 19.44
Regionwide 2,887,140 7,915,267 180,468,151 22.80 19.38
2020 with Housing Element
Project

City 71,391 175,466 1,867,472 10.64
County 639,106 1,767,601 33,888,385 19.17
Regionwide 2,906,238 7,962,729 180,855,141 22.71 19.31
2020 with Southside Zoning
Changes

City 73,043 179,597 1,853,029 10.32 County 640,758 1,771,732 33,920,424 19.15 Regionwide 2,907,890 7,966,860 180,896,597 22.71 19.30 SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2023
NOTE: NET CHANGE IN METRICS IS ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 2020 PLUS PROJECT ADDENDUM VMT/CAPITA IS LOWER THAN 15% BELOW REGIONWIDE AVERAGE

Table 2. 2040 City, County, and Regionwide VMT per Capita Scenario Households Population VMT VMT/Capita 15% Below 2040 No-Project
City 55,366 141,068 1,607,349 11.39
County 738,755 2,082,721 37,007,548 17.77
Regionwide 3,431,389 9,626,790 215,286,847 22.36 19.01
2040 with Housing Element
Project

City 74,464 188,530 2,078,822 11.03
County 757,853 2,130,183 37,536,311 17.62
Regionwide 3,450,487 9,674,252 215,459,688 22.27 18.93
2040 with Southside Zoning
Changes

City 76,116 192,641 2,088,198 10.84
County 759,505 2,134,294 37,290,458 17.47
Regionwide 3,452,139 9,678,363 215,847,640 22.30 18.96
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2023
NOTE: NET CHANGE IN METRICS IS ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 2040 PLUS PROJECT ADDENDUM VMT/CAPITA IS LOWER THAN 15% BELOW REGIONWIDE AVERAGE

July 18, 2023 Page 4
City of Berkeley Southside Zoning Implementation Program Housing Element VMT Impact Assessment Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 3. 2031 City, County, and Regionwide VMT per Capita** Scenario Households Population VMT VMT/Capita 15% Below 2031 No-Project
City 53,983 135,189 1,530,352 11.32
County 685,319 1,919,559 35,398,573 18.44
Regionwide 3,186,477 8,856,605 199,618,434 22.54 19.16
2031 with Housing Element
Project

City 73,081 182,651 1,983,715 10.86
County 704,417 1,967,021 35,894,744 18.25
Regionwide 3,205,575 8,904,067 199,887,642 22.45 19.08
2031 with Southside Zoning
Changes

City 74,733 186,771 1,982,372 10.61
County 706,069 1,971,141 35,773,943 18.15
Regionwide 3,207,227 8,908,187 200,119,671 22.46 19.09
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2023; **- INTERPOLATED RESULTS FROM 2020 & 2040.

NOTE: NET CHANGE IN METRICS IS ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 2031 PLUS PROJECT ADDENDUM VMT/CAPITA IS LOWER THAN 15% BELOW REGIONWIDE AVERAGE

CONCLUSION
The VMT assessment for the Southside Zoning Implementation Program reflects the full buildout potential of the Southside area. The VMT analysis was conducted using the Alameda CTC Countywide model. An additional 1,652 housing units were added t o the model in each TAZ that represent the sites inventory and projected ADUs that would be feasible in the Southside area. VMT per capita was extracted at the systemwide level (City, County, and Regionwide ) for 2020 and 2040 . Year 2031 was interpolated fr om the 2020 and 2040 to represent the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) horizon. The results indicate that at the programmatic level, the VMT/Capita associated with the additional residential units in the Southside area is 15% below the existing regionwide average, and is therefore not impacted under SB -743 and City VMT Guidelines. As a result, no mitigations are recommended.

Appendix B
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Results

Southside Addendum Detailed Report, 6/29/2023
1 / 52
Southside Addendum Detailed Report
T able of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use T ypes

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated

3.7. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated