Berkeley City Council
March 25, 2025

3000 Shattuck Detailed Report, 2/19/2025
36 / 41
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2

3000 Shattuck Detailed Report, 2/19/2025
37 / 41
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 3.12
AQ-PM 41.3
AQ-DPM 71.9
Drinking Water 4.21
Lead Risk Housing 64.9
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 57.1
Traffic 60.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 50.3
Groundwater 78.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 64.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 43.9

3000 Shattuck Detailed Report, 2/19/2025
38 / 41
Cardio-vascular 10.5
Low Birth Weights 59.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 7.82
Housing 50.3
Linguistic 11.3
Poverty 48.6
Unemployment 82.3

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 63.35172591
Employed 86.50070576
Median HI 51.39227512
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 91.67201335
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 70.537662
Transportation —
Auto Access 7.314256384
Active commuting 98.42166046
Social —
2-parent households 42.60233543
Voting 67.21416656
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 4.516874118

3000 Shattuck Detailed Report, 2/19/2025
39 / 41
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 76.22225074
Supermarket access 85.74361607
Tree canopy 53.0347748
Housing —
Homeownership 28.53843193
Housing habitability 41.30630053
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 28.02515078 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 47.18336969
Uncrowded housing 70.98678301
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 78.89131272
Arthritis 67.1
Asthma ER Admissions 41.3
High Blood Pressure 69.1
Cancer (excluding skin) 40.8
Asthma 51.9
Coronary Heart Disease 83.6
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 86.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 84.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 60.6
Cognitively Disabled 30.7
Physically Disabled 30.9
Heart Attack ER Admissions 93.1
Mental Health Not Good 76.1
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 62.5
Pedestrian Injuries 98.1

3000 Shattuck Detailed Report, 2/19/2025
40 / 41
Physical Health Not Good 87.1
Stroke 75.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 14.4
Current Smoker 77.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 90.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 90.9
Elderly 64.7
English Speaking 85.1
Foreign-born 12.2
Outdoor Workers 91.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 18.7
Traffic Density 46.0
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 16.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 67.6

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 35.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 85.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No

3000 Shattuck Detailed Report, 2/19/2025
41 / 41
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Project site plans
Construction: Construction Phases Adjusted construction schedule assumptions to be consistent with applicant provided information
Operations: Hearths no fireplaces or woodstoves
Construction: Dust From Material Movement BAAQMD BMPS
Construction: Trips and VMT Based on aerial Google Earth measurements, approx. 7,663 sf of asphalt would be removed during demolition phase. Assued 4 inch depth.

Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust Based on BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines

Z ONING

A DJUSTMENT S
B OARD
Staff Report
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mai
l: [email protected]

FOR BOARD ACTION
MAY 11, 2023
3000 Shattuck Avenue
Use Permit #ZP2022-0046 to demolish the existing gas station, and construct a 10-story (114 feet) mixed-use building utilizing a Density Bonus, with 166 dwellings, including 17 Very Low-Income units, and 1,043 square-feet of commercial space.

I. Background
A. Land Use Designations:
• General Plan: AC – Avenue Commercial
• Zoning: C-SA – South Area Commercial District
B. Zoning Permits Required:
• Use Permit pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 23.326.070(A) to demolish a non-residential main building
• Use Permit pursuant to BMC Section 23.204.100(B)(4)(b) to construct a mixed- use development of more than 5,000 square-feet
• Use Permit pursuant to BMC Section 23.204.020 to add multi-family dwellings • Use Permit pursuant to BMC Section 23.204.100(D)(2) to modify the height and stories, setbacks, and lot coverage
• Administrative Use Permit pursuant to BMC Section 23.304.050(A) to allow architectural features over the maximum height limit
C. Concessions and Waivers and Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (CA Gov’t.

Code Section 65915)
• Waiver of BMC Section 23.204.100(D)(1) to exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
limit – to be 6, where 4 is the maximum
• Waiver of BMC Section 23.204.100(D)(1) to exceed building height limits – to be 113 feet 10 inches and 10 stories, where 36 feet and 3 stories is the limit • Waiver of BMC Section 23.204.100(D)(1) to reduce the required front setback from 15 feet to 2 feet 6 inches
• Waiver of BMC Section 23.204.100(D)(1) to reduce the required rear setback from 15 feet to 11 feet 3 inches
ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023
ATTACHMENT 6

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 2 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx • Waiver of BMC Section 23.204.100(D)(1) to reduce the required street side (left side) setback from 6 feet to 15 feet (varies by story) to 0 to 6 feet 9 inches • Waiver of BMC Section 23.204.100(D)(1) to reduce the required interior side (right side) setback from 4 feet to 12 feet (varies by story) to 5 feet 7 inches • Waiver of BMC Section 23.204.100(D)(1) to exceed the lot coverage limit – to be 62 percent, where 40 percent is the maximum

D. CEQA Recommendation: It is staff’s recommendation that the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) adopt the Addendum to the 3000 Shattuck Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) (SCH# 2017062025) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Addendum are attached to this staff report (see Attachment 3). See Section V for further discussion of the project’s CEQA review.

E. Parties Involved:
• Applicant Isaiah Stackhouse, 2421 Fourth Street, Berkeley • Property Owner 3000 Shattuck Avenue, LLC, 2343 Stuart Street, Berkeley

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 3 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx Figure 1: Zoning Map

Legend
Zoning
C-SA: South Area Commercial
R-2: R
estricted Two-Family Residential
R-2A: Restricted Multiple-Family Residential
R-4: Multi-Family Residential

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 4 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx Figure 2: Site Plan/Ground Floor Plan

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 5 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx Figure 3: Shattuck Avenue Elevation (East)

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 6 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx Figure 4: Ashby Avenue Elevation (North)

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 7 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx Table 1: Land Use Information
Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation Subject Property Gas Station
C-SA
Av enue Commercial (AC)
Surrounding
Properties
North Gas Station Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
South Residential Avenue Commercial (AC)
East Car Rental Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
West Commercial/Multi-
Family Residential Avenue Commercial (AC)

Table 2: Special Characteristics
Characteristic
Applies
to
Project?
Explanation

Affordable Child Care Fee for
qualifying non-residential projects
(Per Resolution 66,618-N.S. No
The proposed net new non-residential floor area is
less than7,500 square feet and therefore this
project is not subject to these resolutions.

Affordable Housing Fee for qualifying
non-residential projects (Per
Resolution 66,617-N.S.)
Affordable Housing Mitigations for
rental housing projects (Per BMC

22.20.065)
1 Yes
Project would provide 17 Below Market Rate
(BMR) units at the Very Low-Income (VLI) rate and
pay a fee to satisfy the requirements of BMC
Section 22.20.065(D).

Alcohol Sales/Service No The applicant is not proposing alcohol sales or service with this permit.

Creeks No The site is not near a mapped creek or a creek culvert.

Density Bonus Yes
The project would provide 17 Very Low-Income
units, or 15 percent of the Base Project units, and
qualifies for a 50 percent density bonus, or 56
bonus units (55 taken) under State Density Bonus
law. See Section VI.C below.

Historic Resources No
In May 2016 the property was referred to the
Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), and
the LPC took no action to designate the building.

See Section IV.C for additional discussion on the
Landmarks review of this property.

Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t
Code Section 65589.5(j)) Yes
The project is a mixed-use building that meets the
definition of a “Housing Development Project” per
Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2)

2. The
base project complies with applicable, objective
general plan and zoning standards, and thus

1 Project vested under SB 330 on/before March 31, 2023, prior to effective date of new inclusionary housing requirements and is therefore subject to the Affordable Housing Mitigations in BMC 22.20.065 that was in effect at the time of vesting. 2Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2) “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following: (A) residential units only, (B) mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which at least two-thirds of the square footage is designated for residential use, and (C) transitional or supportive housing.

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 8 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx section (j) of the Housing Accountability Act
applies. See Section VI.B of this report for
additional discussion on compliance with the
Housing Accountability Act.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB330) Yes
The project is a mixed-use building that meets the
definition of a “Housing Development Project” per
Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2)3. See
Section VI.A of this report for additional discussion
on the sections of SB 330 that apply to the project.

Natural Gas Prohibition
(Per BMC 12.80.020) Yes
This application is for new construction and was
submitted after January 1, 2020, and is therefore
subject to the Natural Gas Prohibition.

Oak Trees No There are no oak trees on the project site.

Percent for Art
(BMC Chapter 23.316) Yes
The project is subject to the City’s Public Art on
Private Projects ordinance. The applicant has
indicated that they would provide the artwork on
site (valued at 1.75 percent of total building permit
valuation).

Rent Controlled Units No
The project would involve the demolition of non-
residential structures; no rent-controlled units
would be demolished.

Residential Preferred Parking (RPP)

No
The site is not located in an RPP zone. Also, newly
constructed dwellings would not be eligible to
participate in the RPP program.

Seismic Hazards (SHMA) No
The site is not located within an area susceptible
to liquefaction, fault rupture, or landslides as
shown on the State Seismic Hazard Zones map.

Soil/Groundwater Contamination Yes

The project site is located within the City’s
Environmental Management Area. The project site
is listed on the Cortese List, and Phase I and
Phase II reports were prepared. The Toxics
Management Division will refer this project during
building permit review for sign off from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department
of Toxic Substances Control, or the Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health. Also,
standard Conditions of Approval related to
hazardous materials would apply (COA #23).

Transit Yes
The project site is located on the southwest corner
of Shattuck Avenue and Ashby Avenue, is served
by multiple bus lines (local and Transbay), and is

0.3 miles from the Ashby BART Station. In
addition, the Bike Boulevard on Milvia Street is
within 0.3 miles.

3 See footnote 1
ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 9 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx Table 3: Project Chronology
Date Action
December 14, 2021 SB 330 complete preliminary housing development project application submitted March 29, 2022 Application submitted
May 11, 2022 Application deemed incomplete
July 8, 2022 Revised application materials submitted
August 3, 2022 Application deemed complete
January 19, 2023 Design Review Committee Preliminary Design Review January 27, 2023 Addendum to previous Initial Study published April 27, 2023 Public hearing notices mailed/posted
May 11, 2023 ZAB hearing

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 10 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx Table 4: Development Standards
Commercial Corridor (C-SA)
Standards
BMC Sections 23.204.100
Existing Proposed Permitted/
Required
Lot Area (sq. ft.) 13,561 13,561 n/a
Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 1,180 81,552 n/a
Floor Area Ratio

0.09 6 4
(modifiable with Use
Permit)
Dwelling Units
Total 0 166 n/a
Affordable 0 17 n/a
Building
Height
Maximum (ft.)
14’ 113’-10” 36’
(modifiable with Use
Permit)
Stories
1 10 3
(modifiable with Use
Permit)
Building
Setbacks (ft.)
Front (Ashby) 35’
2’-6” to 3’ 15’
(modifiable with Use
Permit)
Rear 41’ 11’-3” to 85’-2” 15’
(modifiable with Use
Permit)
Left Side Street
(East/Shattuck)
35’ 0’ to 6’-8” 6’-15’
(modifiable with Use
Permit)
Right Side (West) 26’ 5’-7” to 39’-4” 4’-12’
(modifiable with Use
Permit)
Lot Coverage (%)
9 62 40
(modifiable with Use
Permit)
Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) per
Dwelling Unit
n/a 7,879 6,640
Parking

Car 11 0 0
Bike Commercial
(1,043 sq. ft.) 0 2 1
(1 space/2,000 sq. ft.)
Bike Residential
(long-term)
0 55
55 (1 space/3 bedrooms)
Bike Residential
(short-term)
0 5
4 (1 space/40 bedrooms,
or 2)
Total Bike Parking 0 62 61
_______ = Waiver, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, requested to modify the district standard.

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 11 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx II. Project Setting

A. Neighborhood/Area Description: The project site is located on the southwest corner of Ashby Avenue and Shattuck Avenue. The surrounding area consists of a mix of commercial and residential development ranging from one to three stories in height.

The Ashby BART station is 0.3 miles to the west. In addition, bus service is available via AC Transit routes 18 and 800.

B. Site Conditions: The 13,561-square-foot project site comprises two parcels, and is currently developed with a gas station that includes a mini -market with an office, car repair services, smog test center, two gas station canopies with pump islands, and surface parking for 11 automobiles. Access to the site is provided from both Ashby and Shattuck Avenues.

III. Project Description

A. Proposed Project : The project would demolish the existing commercial buildings , remove the existing paving and the curb cuts, and construct a new ten- story mixed- use building with the following primary components:
• 166 dwelling units (all studios) for a total of 166 bedrooms; • Commercial space: 1,043 square feet in area, for one tenant on the ground floor at the northwest corner of the property;
• Two bicycle storage room s, one for 38 bicycles, the other for 24 bicycles on the ground floor, and five short-term bicycle parking spaces along Shattuck Avenue and Ashby Avenue;
• Residential access from Shattuck Avenue;
• Residential amenities on the ground floor including club room, and property management and leasing offices;
• Laundry rooms within each unit;
• New street trees along Shattuck Avenue and Ashby Avenue; • Useable open space totaling 8,516 square feet consisting of ground level space and a roof deck;
• Roof deck areas containing plantings, a pergola, seating, and an outdoor kitchen;

B. Base Project and Density Bonus : The applicant has requested a density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law. Under the City’s density bonus procedures, the “base project”4 is 111 units, as the maximum allowable density for the site. The six- story Base Project and the resulting ten-story Proposed Project both have an average unit size of 485 square feet. The Density Bonus calculations are provided in more detail, below:

4 Per the City’s Density Bonus Procedures (DBP), the Base Project is the largest project allowed on the site that is fully compliant with district development standards (i.e. height, setbacks, usable open space, parking, etc.), or, the maximum allowable density for the site. The City uses the DBP to calculate the maximum allowable density for a site where there is no density standard in the zoning district, and to determine the number of units in the Proposed Project, which is the number of Base Project units plus the number of density bonus units that can be added according to the percentage of BMR units proposed, per Government Code, Section 65915(f).

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 12 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx

Table 5: Density Bonus
Base Project
Units* Qualifying Units Percent Density
Bonus
Number of Density
Bonus Units*
Proposed Project
Units
111 17 VLI
(15% of base project) 50% 56
(50%x111) 166
*Per Gov’t Code 65915(q), all unit calculations are rounded up to the nearest whole number.

By providing 17 Very Low Income (VLI) Below Market Rate (BMR) units on site (15 percent of the 111-unit base density), the project is eligible for a 50 percent density bonus, or 56 additional units. Therefore, the applicant proposes 55 additional units above the base density for a total of 166 dwelling units.

To accommodate the additional units, the project would use seven waivers/ modifications:
1) E xceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit from 4.0 to 6.0 2) E xceed the building height limit from 36 feet and 3 stories to 113 feet 10 inches and 10 stories
3) Reduce the required front setback from 15 feet to 2 feet 6 inches 4) Reduce the required rear setback from 15 feet to 11 feet 3 inches 5) Reduce the required street side (left side) setback from 6 feet to 15 feet (varies by story) to 0 feet
6) R educe the required interior side (right side) setback from 4 feet to 12 feet (varies by story) to 5 feet 7 inches
7) E xceed the lot coverage limit from 40 percent to 62 percent

IV. Community Discussion

A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: Prior to submitting this application to the city, the applicant invited interested neighborhood organizations as well as owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project to a project preview meeting. The meeting was held on March 14, 2022, and attended by nine people (meeting minutes are included as Attachment 4). A pre-application poster was erected by the applicant in March 2022. On April 27, 2023, the City mailed public hearing notices to property owners and occupants, and to interested neighborhood organizations and the City posted notices within the neighborhood in three locations. At the time of this writing, staff has not received any communications regarding the project, other than inquiries about the status of the project.

B. Design Review Committee: On January 19, 2023, the Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the project design for 3000 Shattuck Avenue, gave a favorable recommendation on the design as presented, and provided conditions and direction for Final Design Review (FDR) (Attachment 5).

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 13 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx C. Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC): The project involves the demolition of an existing commercial building that is over 40 years in age. As detailed in a Historic Resource Evaluation completed by Bridget Maley in November 2015, and discussed in the addendum to the Initial Study -Negative Declaration, the building proposed for demolition does not meet the criteria for the California Register or a City of Berkeley Landmark. Pursuant to BMC Section 23.326.070(C), the proposed demolition was referred to the LPC in May 2016 for review prior to the consideration of the prior Use Permit. The LPC reviewed the demolition referral and took no action.

V. Environmental Review

A. CEQA Approach: Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, codified in Sections 15000 et seq. of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously adopted negative declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15612 calling for preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred.

Under Section 15162 (a), where a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent environmental impact report ( EIR) or negative declaration (ND) shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that there are substantial changes in the project or circumstances or substantially important new information that will cause the project to have significant new impacts or substantially increase previously identified significant impacts.

Table 6 below compares the previously approved project and the revised project. As discussed in detail in the Addendum, potential impacts associated with the modified project (the proposed changes compared to the project evaluated in the negative declaration) currently before the ZAB would be consistent with potential impacts discussed in the negative declaration. Although the addendum includes an analysis of energy and wildfire, which were not included in the negative declaration, no significant impacts were found to occur regarding these resource areas. Substantive revisions to the negative declaration are not necessary because no new significant impacts would occur. Thus, the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND would not be met and an addendum is the appropriate CEQA document.

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 14 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx Table 6: Changes to Previously Approved Project

Project Characteristic Previously Approved Project Updated Project Total Floor Area 38,828 sf 81,552 sf
Lot Coverage 83% 62%
Residential1 32,603 sf 80,509 sf
Retail 6,225 sf 1,043 sf
Building Height 56 feet and 11 inches; 5 stories 113 feet and 10 inches; 10 stories
Total Residential Units 44 units1 166 units2
Affordable Units 4 units 17 units
Open Space
Roof Deck N/A 4,488 sf
Gro
und Level Open Space N/A 3,391 sf
Usable Open Space 2,092 sf 7,879 sf
Parking
Automobile 17 spaces 0 spaces
Bicycle 62 spaces 62 spaces3
Construction
Length 18 months 18 mont hs
1Includes 4 studios (430 sf on average), 31 1-bedrooms (616 sf on average), and 8 2-bedrooms (902 sf on average). 2All units would be studios.
3Includes 55 long-term residential spaces, 5 short-term residential spaces, and 2 short-term commercial spaces sf = square feet

B. Initial Study/Negative Declaration Addendum: An Addendum to the 3000 Shat
tuck IS/ND, which was adopted in November 2018, was prepared to evaluate the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, pursuant to CEQA. The Addendum considered the IS/ND and evaluated the modified project, i.e., the proposed project currently before the ZAB. Impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would remain less than significant.

VI. Issues and Analysis

A. SB 330 – Housing Crisis Act of 2019: The Housing Crisis Act, also known as Senate Bill 330, seeks to boost homebuilding throughout the State with a focus on urbanized zones by expediting the approval process for and suspending or eliminating restrictions on housing development. Housing development is defined as a project that is: all residential; a mixed- use project with at least two- thirds of the squ are-footage residential; or for transitional or supportive housing. Sections of SB 330 that apply to the proposed project include the following:

1. Government Code §65905.5(a) states that if a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 15 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx in affect at the time an application is deemed complete, then the city shall not conduct more than five hearings in connection with the approval of that housing development project. This includes all public hearings in connection with the approval of the housing development project and any continuances of such public hearings. The city must consider and either approve or disapprove the project at any of the five hearings consistent with applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with §65920)).

The project application was deemed complete on August 3, 2022. The DRC meeting on January 19, 2023 was the first public hearing, and the May 11, 2023 ZAB hearing is the second for the proposed project since the project was deemed complete. The City can hold up to t hree additional public hearings on this project, if needed. One of those hearings must be reserved for any possible appeal to the City Council.

2. Government Code §65913.10(a) requires that the City determine whether the proposed development project site is a historic site at the time the application for the housing development project is deemed complete . The determination as to whether the parcel is a historic site must remain valid during the pendency of the housing development project, unless any archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources are encountered during any grading, site disturbance, or building alteration activities.

As discussed in the Addendum, the property does not appear to be historically significant and therefore is not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources or as a City of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit. The demolition referral was heard at the May 5 , 2016, Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, and no action was taken. Therefore, it was determined the site is not a historic resource. Further, standard conditions of approval have been included to halt work in case of any unanticipated discovery of archeol ogical, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources.

3. Government Code §65950(a)(4) requires a public agency to approve or disapprove a project within 60 days from the date of adoption by the lead agency of the negative declaration for a housing development project. A negative declaration for the original use permit on the project site was adopted on November 27, 2018. The modified project was deemed complete on August 3, 2022. Staff determined on August 3, 2022 that the appropriate level of CEQA review was preparation of an Addendum to the negative declaration, in order to evaluate the modified project’s potential impacts on the environment . (See Section V for details on the CEQA Approach and Addendum .) Therefore, Section 65950(a)(4) does not apply to the project. However, should ZAB adopt the Addendum at the May 11, 2023 public hearing, the application must be approved or disapproved by July 10, 2023.

B. Housing Accountability Act Analysis: The Housing Accountability Act (HAA), California Government Code Section 65589.5(j), requires that when a proposed housing development complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 16 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx standards, but a local agency proposes to deny the projec t or approve it only if the density is reduced, the agency must base its decision on written findings supported by substantial evidence that:

1. The development would have a specific adverse impact5 on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and

2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density.

The Base Project, including the extension of height to 65 feet and six stories, allowed by Use P ermits
6, complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards. Further, Section 65589.5(j)(3) provides that a request for a density bonus “shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.” Therefore, the City may not deny the Base Project or density bonus request or reduce the density with respect to those units without basing its decision on the written findings under Section 65589.5(j), above. Staff is aware of no specific adverse impacts that could occur with the construction of the Base Project or the density bonus units. Therefore, Section 65589.5(j) does apply to the Proposed Project.

All find ings discussed below are subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 65589.5.

C. Density Bonus Concessions and Waivers: The project is entitled to three concessions (or incentives) under Government Code Section 65915(d), and an unlimited number of waivers under Section 65915(e).

Concessions. A concession is a modification of a development standard that reduces the cost of providing affordable housing. The applicant is not requesting any concessions for the project.

Waiver. A waiver is a modification of a development standard that would otherwise physically preclude the construction of the project with the permitted density bonus and concessions. The applicant is requesting seven waivers from the following development standards: 1) to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) from 4.0 to 6; 2) exceed the height limit of 36 feet/3 stories and propose 113 feet 10 inches/10 stories; 3) Reduce the required front setback from 15 feet to 2 feet 6 inches; 4) Reduce the required rear setback from 15 feet to 11 feet 3 inches; 5) Reduce the required street side (left side) setback from 6 feet to 15 feet (varies by story) to 0 feet; 6) Reduce

5 A “specific, adverse impact” means “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete”.
6 The City has determined that the “protections afforded by the HAA and the definition of a base project for density bonus calculations apply to a housing development project up to and including the maximum development allowed with use permits and/or administrative use permits”. Therefore, the use permits to allow height to 50 feet and 4 stories are included in the Base Project for the purpose of determining the applicability of Section 65589.5(j).

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 17 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx the required interior side (right side) setback from 4 feet to 12 feet (varies by story) to 5 feet 7 inches;7) Exceed the lot coverage limit from 40 percent to 62 percent. The waivers are requested because they are necessary to physically accommodate the additional 56 units (55 taken) as allowed under the density bonus project on the site.

The City may only deny the waivers if it finds that the waivers would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety, or the physical environment, or on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low -income, very -low income, and moderate-income households, or if the waiver would be contrary to State or Federal law. Staff believes such a finding cannot be made.
7 D. Use Permit to Demolish Non-residential Buildings: The proposed project includes the demolition of the gas station and associated structures on the site. Pursuant to BMC Section 23.326.070, the demolition of a non- residential building requires ZAB approval. In addition, pursuant to BMC Section 23.326.070(C), an application for a permit to demolish a non-residential building or structure which is 40 or more years old must be forwarded to the LPC for review prior to the consideration of the use permit.

As noted above in Section IV.C, at a duly noticed hearing, the LPC reviewed the demolition referral and took no action to initiate a local historic designation.

Pursuant to BMC 23.326.070(D), the demolition of the non- residential building would not be materially detrimental to the commercial and public interest of any affected neighborhood in the city. The new mixed-use building would replace the existing gas station with a new 81,522 square-foot building, 166 dwelling units (studios), and 1,043 square-feet of commercial space. The proposed project includes a mixed-use building which would provide new dwelling units and commercial space in the C-SA District, and thus would be compatible with adjacent and nearby commercial and residential uses.

Therefore, staff believes that ZAB can make the required finding that demolition would be necessary to allow construction of the proposed mixed-use building, subject to the condition of approval allowing demolition of the existing buildings only after complete construction plans are submitted to the City for the replacement buildings.

VII. Other Zoning and Land Use Considerations
The analyses of conformance with district purposes, use permit findings for non-detriment, and the South Berkeley Area Plan (adopted 1990) and 2002 General Plan goals and policies are provided for Board consideration. T he proposed project is HAA -compliant. The following permits have been determined by the City to be included in the Base Project of the proposal, and are subject to Section 65589.5(j) of the HAA. See section VI.B for discussion of the HAA.

7 See Footnote 4.

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 18 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx All permits are subject to the C-SA District permit findings and General Non-Detriment findings discussed in sections VII.A and VII.B.

A. Findings for Use Permits in the C -SA District: Pursuant to BMC Section

23.204.100(E), in order to approve any Use Permit in the district, the Board must make the findings that the proposed use or structure:

1) Is compatible with the purposes of the district: The project is a higher -density development in proximity to regional transit, shops, and amenities, that is compatible with the purposes of the zoning district and the surrounding uses and buildings. The project site is located within the South Area Commercial District (C- SA) and is designated Avenue Commercial in the City’s General Plan. It would create 166 new studio dwelling units. Seventeen of the units would be deed restricted as affordable housing units for very-low-income residents.

The proposal also includes 1,043 square feet of commercial space and a total of 62 secure bicycle parking spaces (short -term and long-term) on the ground floor.

The project site is well served by public transportation, including a BART station less than half -mil
e to the southwest. The surrounding commercial area includes retail sales, restaurants, personal services, and multi -family residential uses; the project would add to these commercial and residential uses and add population to support these uses.

2) Is compatible in design and character with the district and the adjacent residential neighborhoods: The project site currently includes automotive uses. The proposed project would change uses on the site to ground-floor commercial, with residential uses on all floors. The project would not introduce new land uses that do not already exist in the area. The design would be residential mixed-use, and would be consistent with the character of the commercial corridors of Shattuck Avenue and Ashby Avenue.

3) Will not result in the domination of one type of commercial/retail use in any one area of the district: T he project includes 1,043 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and would not result in the domination of one type of commercial use in this portion of the C-SA District.

B. General Non- Det
riment Finding: BMC Section 23.406.040 states that before th e ZAB approves an application for a Use Permit, it must find that the project, under the circumstances of this particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City.

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 19 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx Shadows: According to the shadow studies submitted for the project (See Attachment 2, Project Plans – Sheets A0.4A-A0.4C), new shadows would affect dwellings at the following locations:

• Newbury Street, northwest of the site, casting new shadows on the winter solstice two hours after sunrise.
• Th
e northeast intersection of Ashby Avenue and Shattuck Avenue, casting new shadows on the winter solstice two hours before sunset. • Ashby Avenue, west of the project site, casting new shadows on the summer solstice two hours after sunrise.
• Shattuck Avenue, southeast of the project site, casting new shadows on the summer solstice two hours before sunset.

Shadow impacts on adjacent dwellings are to be expected, because the subject site is located in the C-SA district, which allows a Use Permit to exceed the 36 foot/3 story height limit, with no limitation on the height, and is allowed to be included in the density bonus base project. A waiver to height and stories is allowed to accommodate the density bonus units (see section VI.D for a discussion of waivers). Because the impacts to neighboring properties would occur on limited areas, and would only partially shade neighboring buildings for a limited time during the year, and only for a few hours of the day, the building would not result in a significant loss of direct sunlight on abutting dwellings, and these shading impacts are not deemed detrimental.

Non-Detriment: The project is subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval regarding construction noise and air quality, waste diversion, toxics, and stormwater requirements, thereby ensuring the project would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. These standard conditions would ensure that the project would satisfy this finding.

C. Use Permit to Modify the Height and Stories, Setbacks, and Lot Coverage:

Pursuant to BMC Section 23.204.100(D)(2) ZAB may modify development standards in the C-SA District for mixed-use projects, including height and stories, setbacks, and lot coverage, upon making one of the following findings:
a. The project encourages utilization of public transit and existing off-street parking facilities in the area of the proposed building;
b. The modification allows consistency with the building setbacks existing in the immediate area where a residential building setback would not serve a useful purpose;
c. The modification facilitates the construction of affordable housing as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines; or d. The modification provides consistency with the purposes of the district as listed in Section 23.204.100.A (District Purpose).

The proposed project is served by multiple bus lines (local and Transbay), is 0.3 ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 20 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx miles from the Ashby BART Station, and the Bike Boulevard on Milvia Street is within

0.3 miles. Car parking is not required and will not be provided, but secure bike parking is required.

The reduction in the setbacks is greatest along the Shattuck and Ashby frontages, where it will have less of an impact on nearby dwelling units, and minimal street side and front setbacks are typical for commercial corridors.

The modification of height and stories, setbacks, and lot coverage supports the location of on-site affordable housing.

D. Administrative Use Permit for Roof-Top Projections: BMC Section 23.304.050(A) requires an Administrative Use Permit for roof -top projections, such as mechanical penthouses, elevator equipment rooms or stair towers, that would exceed the maximum height limit. Such projections are limited to no more than 15 percent of the average floor area of all of the building’s floors and cannot be used as habitable space or for commercial purposes. With a gross floor area of 81,522 square feet, the average floor area for ten floors is 8,152 square feet, and 15 percent of the average floor area is 1,223 square feet. The proposed features occupy 1,020 square feet, which complies with the limit.

E. 1990 South Berkeley Area Plan Consistency:

A. Housing Element Policy 3.7: Encourage the construction of new affordable housing units.

B. Housing Element Policy 3.10: Locate higher density housing in area with easy access to retail activity, the workplace, and public transportation.

Staff Analysis: The project would provide 17 units affordable to Very Low-Income households. The project is located in the Shattuck Corridor that is within walking distance to Ashby BART station, several bus lines, and the Berkeley Bowl market.

C. Housing Element Policy 5.2: Ensure that usable open space improvements are integrated into new housing and mixed-use developments.

Staff Analysis: The project provides 7,879 s quare feet of usable open space at the ground level and roof deck and this area includes landscaping and seating.

D. Land Use Policy A. 1: Preserve the character and quality of life of residential areas.

E. Land Use Policy C.1.2: Regulate mixed development to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Staff Analysis: The building is concentrated toward the corner of Ashby and Shattuck with the greatest setbacks at the rear and sides near the adjacent R -2A District, and the rooftop elevator penthouse and stair overrun near the center of the building, generally aware from the R-2A District.

F. 2002 General Plan Consistency:

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 21 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx

1. 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.

2. Policy LU-7–Neighborhood Quality of Life, Action A: Require that new development be consistent with zoning standards and compatible with the scale, historic character, and surrounding uses in the area.

3. P olicy H-33 – Regional Housing Needs: Encourage housing production adequate to meet City needs and the City’s share of regional housing needs.

4. 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.

5. Policy H-12 – Transit-Oriented New Construction: E
ncourage construction of new
medium- and high-density housing on major transit corridors and in pr oximity to transit stations consistent with zoning, applicable area plans, design review guidelines, and the Climate Action Plan.

6. Policy T-43 – Bicycle Network, Action C: E
ncourage, and when appropriate, require
new multi -family residential developments to provide secure locker space for resident bicycles.

7. Policy UD-32–Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows.

The project would improve the utilization of the site with development that is of appropriate intensity, that is compatible with the existing surrounding development, and that would further improve the neighborhood character and quality of life by providing new
housing and a new commercial space. The project site is served by multiple bus lines (local and Transbay), and is 0.3 miles from the Ashby BART Station. In addition, the Bike Boulevard on Milvia Street is within 0.3 miles.

8. Policy UD- 33–Sust
ainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and
sustainable design in new buildings.

9. Policy EM-5–“Green” Buildings: Prom ote and encourage compliance with “green” building standards. (Also see Policies EM-8, EM-26, EM-35, EM-36, and UD-6.)

The project would help Berkeley meet its regional housing needs by adding 166 new
housing units, including 17 VLI units. The project would be subject to standard conditions of approval that promote sustainable building design, including conditions for solar PV systems, water efficient landscaping, and natural gas prohibitions.

VIII. Recommendation

Because of the project’s consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and minimal impact on surrounding properties, staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board:

A. ADOPT the Addendum to the 3000 Shattuck Initial Study-Negative Declaration.

ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE
May 11, 2023 Page 22 of 22

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Shattuck\3000\ZP2022-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\ZAB\2023-05-11_ZAB_SR_3000 Shattuck.docx

B. APPROVE Use Permit ZP2022-0046, pursuant to BMC Section 23.406.040 and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1).

Attachments:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Project Plans, received May 2, 2023

3. Addendum to the 3000 Shattuck Initial Study-Negative Declaration, dated January 27, 2023

4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes

5. Design Review Committee Summary, January 19, 2023

6. Notice of Public Hearing

7. 3000 Shattuck Initial Study-Negative Declaration, adopted November 27, 2018

8. Communications

Staff Planner:

Allison Riemer, [email protected], (510)
981-7433
ITEM #5
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue Mixed Use Project
Initial Study – Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Berkeley
Department of Planning & Development, Land Use Division 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, California 94704
Contact: Layal Nawfal, Project Planner, (510) 981-7424
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

ATTACHMENT 7

________________________________________________________________________________

1 Table of Contents

1. Background .................................................................................................................. 3

2. Proje
ct Description ....................................................................................................... 4

3. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................. 8

4. Determination ............................................................................................................... 9

5. Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................. 10

5.1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................. 10

5.2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................................... 12

5.3. Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 13

5.4. Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 16

5.5. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 17

5.6. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................ 18

5.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................. 20

5.8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 21

5.9. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 24

5.10. Land Use Planning ............................................................................................ 26

5.11. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ 27

5.12. Noise ................................................................................................................. 28

5.13. Population and Housing .................................................................................... 29

5.14. Public Services ................................................................................................ . 30

5.15. Recreation ......................................................................................................... 31

5.16. Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................. 32

5.17. Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 34

5.18. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................ 35

5.19. Mandatory Findings Of Significance ................................................................. 38

Appendices
Appendix A Environmental Review Letter & Site Closure Letters Appendix B Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix C Assembly Bill 52 Consultation
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

3 1. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: 3000 Shattuck Avenue

2. Lead Agency: City of Berkeley
Land Use Planning Division
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704

3. Contact Person: Layal Nawfal
Associate Planner
510-981-7424
[email protected]

4. Project Location: 3000 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705

5. Project Sponsor Name and
Addresses:

3000 Shattuck Avenue LLC.
1958A University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704

6. General Plan Designation : Avenue Commercial

7. Zoning: South Area Commercial (C-SA)

8. Description of Project: See the “Project Description” section

9. Surrounding Land Uses and
Settings:

See the “Project Description” section

10. Other public agencies whose
approval is required:

Caltrans encroachment permit for
construction of sidewalk on Ashby Avenue
(State Route 13)

11. Have California Native
American tribes traditionally
and cultural affiliated with the
project area requested
consultation?
The City notified Andrew Galvan of The
Ohlone Tribe Inc. on May 9, 2017, who
alerted the City of Berkeley on May 19, 2017
that no consultation was requested.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

4 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental effects of demolition of an existing 1-story commercial building and rela
ted site improvements and construction of a 5-story
mixed-use building, with commercial and residential uses, located at 3000 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, this Initial Study identifies that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. This Initial Study consists of an environmental checklist, an evaluation of potential project impacts for each topic in the checklist, and a Negative Declaration.

2.3 PROJECT LOCATION
Project Site
This project is located on the southwest corner of Ashby and Shattuck Avenues in the Lorin District neighborhood, as shown in Figure 1. The project site includes two relatively flat and contiguous parcels, totaling 13,561 square feet. The corner property is currently developed with a smog test center, car repair and gas station office, within one building, and two gas station canopies/pump islands. Regulatory-compliant double-walled storage tanks are located underground. A paved surface lot covers the remainder of the project site.

Setting and Surrounding Land Uses and Area
The project site is surrounded by a gas station across Ashby Avenue to the north, car rental business across Shattuck Avenue to the east, residences to the south and west. The surrounding neighborhood is composed of ground-floor commercial uses, single-family and multi-family dwellings units, and mixed use buildings with ground-floor retail or office and residential units above. Surrounding buildings are generally 2- and 3-stories in height.

Ashby Avenue (State Route 13), which is operated by Caltrans, runs east-west adjacent to the north boundary of the project site. AC Transit bus stops for the 49 and 18 bus lines are located adjacent to the project site. The site is also located .23 miles from the Ashby BART Station where BART runs at least every 15 minutes during commute hours. The Station also has AC Transit stops for the 12, 18, 49, 800 and F (transbay) lines and access to the West Berkeley Shuttle.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

5 Figure 1: Project Location

Figure 2: Project Site

Project Site
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

6 2.4 P

ROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes demolition of one 1-story building, two gas pump islands, and related site improvements; removal of the regulatory-compliant underground storage tanks (USTs); and the construction of a 5-story, mixed-use building with ground-floor retail uses and residential dwelling units on the upper 4 stories. The site plan is provided in Figure 3.

The total floor area of the project, per the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance definition, is 38,828 square feet.

The project includes the following components:
 44 dwelling units
 6 ,2
25 square feet of commercial retail and/or restaurant space  Parking for 62 bicycles (where two are required) and 17 vehicles at the ground level, including carshare spaces; additional bike racks will be provided at the sidewalks on Ashby and Shattuck Avenues.
 2 ,0
92 square feet of private or common open space
 Green building features including future installation of solar hot water or solar PV panels, extensive bicycle facilities, and flow-through stormwater planters.  Ga rag
e access via a curb cut on Shattuck Avenue.

Figure 3: Project Site Plan

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

7 The project would include demolition of the existing building and surface parking lot on the site. Construction debris, such as old foundations, pavement, and structures, would be collected and hauled off site for disposal. The USTs would be removed in accordance with City and State laws, as described further in the analysis sections below. Demolition waste would be minimal given the low intensity of the site’s current development and would be disposed of in accordance with all Berkeley, state and federal requirements, including waste diversion and recycling. Construction activities would also include excavation, utility trenching, mat foundations, vertical construction, and installation of pavement and landscaping. No impact pile driving would occur as part of the project. Construction would take place over an 18-month period.

2.5 PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The project site is in an area designated as Avenue Commercial in the City’s General Plan General Plan and is located in the C-SA, South Area Commercial zoning district. The proposed uses are consistent with these use designations. The project proposes an average building height of 56 feet 11 inches and 5 stories (where 36 feet and 3 stories are permitted, respectively); and a lot coverage of 83% where 40% is permitted. With the issuance of use permits for setbacks, building height, number of stories, and lot coverage, the project would be consistent with the C-SA zoning district. Per the requirements of the C-SA district, the
project is subject to the following Use Permits:
 Demolition of a non-residential building
 Construction of gross floor area more than 3,000 square feet  Mixed Use Development (Residential/Commercial) of 5,000 sq. ft. or more  Quick/Full Service Restaurant under 5,000 sq. ft.
 Reduction of front and side yard setbacks
 Exceedance of the maximum height requirement of 36 feet, 3 stories for mixed use buildings
 E x
ceedance of 40% lot coverage
 Reduction in the required off-street parking ratio
 Installation of rooftop mechanical equipment

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

8 3. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECT ED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources
Cultural Resources Geology / Soils

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Hydrology/Water
Quality

Land Use / Planning
Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing
Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems

Mandatory Findings of
Significance

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

9 4. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

x I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

10 5. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following section contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist.

For this project, the following designations are used:
 Potent
ially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.
 Less Tha
n Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: An impact for which mitigation has been identified to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.  Less Tha
n Significant: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.
 No Impac
t: Any impact that does not apply to the project.

5.1. AESTHETICS
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located in an urbanized area, surrounded primarily by 2- and 3-story commercial and residential uses.

DISCUSSION
a) The Berkeley General Plan identifies scenic resources including the San Francisco Bay, the hills, and significant landmarks such as the Golden Gate Bridge. The following policy from the General Plan seeks to protect views of these natural assets:

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

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

Partial views of the Berkeley hills, framed by development along Ashby Avenue, are visible from the public sidewalk. The project would not significantly alter views of the Berkeley hills from a public viewpoints, nor would they degrade public views of other visual resources identified in the Policy UD-31. From an urban design perspective, the p roposed
architectural design and infill nature of the project would improve views to the site as compared to the existing gas station. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than- significant impact with respect to scenic vistas.
b) The project site is not designated as a scenic resource or state scenic highway.

Therefore, the project would result in no impact with respect to scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
c) The visual character of the site would change with the introduction of a 5-story building in place of a 1-story commercial building and surface parking lot. The project would provide commercial and residential uses in a new mixed-use building, consistent with the types of uses found in the surrounding neighborhood. Materials including smooth cement plaster, aluminum windows, and metal and wood details, would provide a visual change to the character of the street when viewed from both Shattuck and Ashby Avenues compared with existing conditions, but would be consistent with materials found in the neighborhood.

The project would maintain a setback at the street edge, consistent with the abutting uses to the west and south. New sidewalks, landscaping, streets, and street trees would continue the pattern of development, circulation, and landscaping found in the neighborhood. Therefore, the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings would be improved and not degraded, and the resulting impact would be less than significant.
d) Lighting at the existing commercial building and parking lot consists primarily of exterior building lights and street lighting. The project would introduce new sources of light and glare as a result of building materials and lighting. New sources of lighting are not anticipated to be substantial in the context of existing light sources. Glare from window glazing would be obstructed by existing surrounding buildings during much of the day and therefore is not expected to be substantial. Add
itionally, the proposed project would be
subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval which require light sources to be shielded and directed away from adjacent properties, as stated in the General Plan:

Policy EM-42: Outdoor lighting should be chosen to avoid glare and provide an attractive nighttime environment with "fully shielded" fixtures to limit light rays emitted above the horizontal plane.

Therefore, adjacent uses would not be adversely affected by new light sources at the project site. As su
ch, the project would result in less-than-significant light and glare impacts and the potential impact would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

12 5.2. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
X

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located in an urbanized area and is not currently being used for farmland, agricultural production, or forestry. The
California State Department of
Conservation designates the subject property as “Urban and Built-Up Land.”1

DISCUSSION
a)-e) No agricultural or forestry land is located on the site. The project would not result in the conversion of any farmland and the subject property is not zoned for agricultural use and does not have a Williamson contract in place. No loss or conversion of forest land would occur as a result of the project. Therefore, the project would result in no impact with respect to agricultural resources.

1 California Department of Conservation, “Alameda County Important Farmland 2014.” Map published December 2016.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

13 5.3. AIR QUALITY
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
X

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates air quality in the Bay Area Region through its permit authority over stationary emission sources and through planning and review activities.

DISCUS
SION
a) BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) contains district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions, particulate matter, and greenhouse gas emissions.

The primary goals of the Plan are to: attain air quality standards; reduce population exposure to air pollutants; protect public health in the Bay Area; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and protect the climate. Consistency with the Plan can be determined if the project support’s the Plan’s goals, includes applicable control measures, and would not disrupt implementation of the Plan’s control measures.

The project contains features that would benefit regional air quality and support the goals of the CAP, including accommodation for future solar hot water or photovoltaic panels, water-efficient landscaping, installation of ENERGY STAR fans and appliances, and use of efficient lighting systems. Additionally, the infill project location provides for dwelling units proximate to high-frequency transit, bike lanes and routes, sidewalks, and neighborhood commercial uses within walking distance of the project site—all of which may reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

14 The 2010 CAP includes 55 control measures that aim to reduce air pollution from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The control measures are organized into five categories; the project’s consistency with each control measure category is described below:

1. Stationary source measures : Since
the project would not be a permitted BAAQMD
facility, these measures are not applicable to the project.

2. Mobile source measures are generally statewide-programs implemented by CARB that aim to reduce vehicle emissions by accelerating the replacement of older, dirtier vehicles and equipment. Consistent with the mobile source measures, heavy- duty diesel vehicles used during project construction would be required to comply with the CARB’s Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation.

3. Transportation control measures are strategies to reduce vehicle trips, use, miles traveled, idling, or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions. Project-specific measures include developing land use patterns that facilitate alternative commutes, such as walking, bicycling and transit. The project would be consistent with these measures by providing access to existing and improved sidewalks, bicycle lanes and routes; AC Transit buses and BART; and on- site carshare vehicles.

4. Land u
se and local impact measures are designed to promote mixed‐use, compact development to reduce motor vehicle travel and emissions, and ensure that growth is planned in a way that protects people from exposure to air pollution from stationary and mobile sources of emissions. The project would provide mixed-use infill development in an existing mixed-use and transit-oriented neighborhood, further contributing to compact development that promotes pedestrian access to goods and services.

5. Energy and climate measures are designed to reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants, reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, and protect the climate by promoting energy conservation, renewable energy production, reductions in “urban heat island” effects, and tree plantings. The project would be consistent with the energy and climate measures by complying with the City’s green building requirements. The project demonstrates 146 points on the GreenPoint Rated New Home Multifamily Checklist, where a minimum 50 points are required. The project would also plant new street trees and landscaping on-site, where no landscaping currently exists.

Based on the analysis above, according to BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on the implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b) During operation of the project, air quality impacts would come primarily from vehicle emissions. As described in Section 5.16(a), redevelopment of the site from a gas station to a mixe
d-use building would result in a net reduction in vehicle trips, compared with the ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

15 trips generated by the existing uses. As a result, the project would not exceed emissions thresholds, as specified by BAAQMD.

The project is expected to generate short-term impacts related to construction activities.

BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM2.5 and PM10), including the use of water or other soil stabilizers. Construction equipment would also be required to meet all current exhaust standards for emissions. With the implementation of standard conditions for construction measures, such as frequent watering (e.g., two times per day at a minimum), fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts. These requirements would be conditions of project approval and would reduce potential air quality impacts to less-than- significant levels.
c) Air
pollution in the region is generally a cumulative impact and therefore future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. As discussed under Section 5.3(b), above, emissions during the construction, demolition, and operational phases of the project would not exceed the emissions thresholds. Therefore, the cumulative impact of ozone precursors and particulate matter from the project would be less than significant.
d) Land uses such as residences, particularly when occupied by children or older adults, are considered to be sensitive receptors to poor air quality. The project would not generate
emissions that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Additionally, there are no known stationary source emissions within the vicinity of the project site. The project site is located at the intersection of two major roadways—Ashby and Shattuck Avenues—which represent mobile source of emissions which could expose sensitive receptors to potential pollutant concentrations. Howev er, consistent with existing
Building Code regulations, design measures (e.g., types of windows, ventilation requirements) would be determined and implemented during the Building plan check review phase in order to meet Title 24 interior noise and air quality standards. As a result, the potential impact on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. e) The project is not anticipated to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction or operation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

16 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

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

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
X

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located within an urban area and has no natural vegetation, habitat for special-status species, wetlands, or riparian habitats.

DISCUSSION
a-d) There are no rare, endangered, or threatened species of flora or fauna known to inhabit the property site. In ad
dition, there is no existing stream, river, lake, drainage channel, or other water body/course on or adjacent to the project site. The project site is ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

17 immediately surrounded by developed area with no significant vegetation. Therefore, the potential impact would be less than significant.
e) The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The project would add drought- tolerant landscaping on-site and street trees, where none currently exists, consistent with City Arborist requirements and recommendations. Therefore, the potential impact would be less than significant.
f) No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other conservation plans apply to the project site. Therefore, there would be no im pact.

5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
X

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique Paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is not located in an area identified as having site-specific archeological, paleontological, or geologic features or resources.

DISCUSSION
a) The existing structure on the project site does not appear to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources under any of the criteria of evaluation at the national, state or local level of significance. The project came before the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission at their May 2016 meeting where no action was taken to designate the building. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to historic resources.
b-d) There are no known archaeological or paleontological sites identified on the subject site. It is p
ossible (though unlikely) that archaeological resources could be identified on the site during ground disturbance activities. Should potential subsurface resources or human remains be found upon excavation, all work would be halted and the City would be ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

18 immediately notified. Necessary measures, such as consulting with an archaeologist, would take place prior to construction resuming. The
se measures are required by State
law. As a result, the potential impact on cultural resources and human remains would be less than significant.

5.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

Iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X

iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
X

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is relatively flat, with limited grading required to excavate for utilities and construct the drainage, landscaping, and structure on the site.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

19 DISCUSSION
a) The project site is located outside of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and outside of liquefaction and landslide zones, as identified by the California Geological Survey.2 However, as is the case for most of California, people and property in Berkeley are subject to risks from seismic activity. The Hayward fault line is the most active fault near the project site. Base
d on an existing regulatory framework that addresses
earthquake safety issues and adherence to the requirements of the California Building Code, seismically-induced ground shaking would not be a substantial hazard on this site.

As a condition of approval, the project would be required to comply with the recommendations of the project’s geotechnical consultant, including designing foundation and drainage geotechnical aspects of the project to ensure that the recommended measures have been properly incorporated into the project. Therefore, the potential impact on exposing people or structures to substantial adverse effects would be less than significant.
b) Grading, excavation and trenching for utility lines, would disturb soils, which could increase the rate of erosion if controls or best management practices were not in place. As a stand
ard condition of approval, the project would be required to meet the requirements for stormwater erosion control measures during design, construction and implementation phases of the project. Therefore, potential erosion impacts would be less than significant. c-d) There are no known geologic hazards on the site and minimal risk of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code, including specific seismic safety requirements. State earthquake protection law requires that buildings be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by earthquakes. The proje ct
would be required to comply with the applicable codes and standards to provide earthquake resistant design to meet or exceed current seismic requirements and mitigate any specific soil condition concerns. The geotechnical report is required by the City of Berkeley at the time of building plan check and would include an assessment of soil properties and recommendations to reduce adverse effects associated with expansive soils to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, potential soil instability impacts would be categorized as less than significant.
e) No septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the project; therefore, the project would have no imp
act.

2 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Oakland West Quadrangle. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps . Accessed March 14, 2017.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

20 5.7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 mandates local governments adopt strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Consisten
t with the objectives of AB 32, the City has adopted a
Climate Action Plan (CAP) to outline strategies to reduce Berkeley's community-wide global warming emissions 33 percent by 2020 relative to 2000 levels. The City’s CAP is not a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, since it precedes the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines which can allow for streamlined environmental review on new development projects. Still, the CAP does represent the City’s policy for GHG reduction.

DISCUSSION
a-b) The project is designed to meet the City’s CAP. It represents a transit-oriented residential project that proposes well-designed housing less than ¼ mile from a BART Station and adjacent to numerous AC Transit lines. The project would incorporate a landscape plan that meets the State of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Bay Friendly Basics requirements for water-saving and drought-resistant planting. It also meets green building and energy efficiency measures consistent with the State’s Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The project demonstrates 146 points on the GreenPoint Rated New Home Multifamily Checklist, where a minimum 50 points are required. The project would also accommodate solar hot water or PV panels, and plant new street trees and landscaping on-site, where no landscaping currently exists. These project features would be expected to reduce GHG emissions and assist the City in meeting the goals of AB 32.

The primary source of GHG emissions during operation of the project would be from mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips). However, as described in Section 5.16(a), redevelopment of the site from a gas station to a mixed-use building would result in a net reduction in vehicle trips.

As a result, the project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions nor conflict with the City’s CAP. Additionally, per the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines the proposed project (mid-rise apartment building between 3 and 10 levels) as would result in a less-than- ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

21 significant impact as projects of this size generate emissions under the significance thresholds.3 Therefore, this potential impact would be less than significant.

5.8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X

3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines Updated May 2011, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guide lines%20May%202011.ashx?la=en. Accessed March 30, 2017.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

22 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is a retail service station and smog inspection facility, which historically has been characterized and remediated for constituents related to releases from the former underground storage tanks (USTs). In 1997, a 200-gallon waste oil tank was removed. In 2000, three 12,000-gallon gasoline USTs were removed and replaced with new regulatory-compliant USTs. Approximately 1,415 tons of soil was removed and disposed off-site when the USTs and associated product lines were replaced in 2000. In February 2013, the local lead agency confirmed completion of investigation and corrective action, and granted no further action for the release associated with the USTs. 4 An additional investigation was opened at the site in December 2012 to address a potential new release presumably associated with the hydraulic lifts at the site. The new release was discovered during groundwater monitoring activities in October 2007; a sample was collected from the impacted well in January 2008. In February and March of 2013, groundwater samples were collected from impacted well A-2 and downgradient well AR-1.

Investigations indicated that the nature and extent of hydraulic fluid contamination has been adequately characterized, and the associated plume was decreasing in size.

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued case closure for this case in September 2014, concluding that the current plume is restricted to the site and does not present a current or potential risk to human health or the environment. The closure letter did not include any site management requirements for the residual impact.

DISCUSSION
a,b) Available site data indicates that very limited, if any, residual gasoline-related impact is present at the site. The most recent subsurface data includes groundwater data from all program monitoring wells in January 2008, from select program wells in March 2010, and, in March 2014, from one well (AR-1) immediately downgradient of the current USTs and dispensers and one well (A-2) downgradient of the building and underground hoist area.

No TPHg or BTEX compounds were detected in the onsite wells in 2008, 2010 and 2014.4 The only residual impact in groundwater is very low concentrations of the former gasoline additive MTBE (MTBE use was banned after 2004) and limited oil range impact, apparently related to a prior release of hydraulic oil. The depth to water has ranged from approximately 5 to 11 feet depth below grade surface.

No hazardous materials are proposed as part of operation of the project. As a condition of approval the project would be required to complete a hazard and safety plan consistent with the City of Berkeley’s broadly applicable condition designed for circumstances such as this. During construction, potentially hazardous liquid materials such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, and hydraulic fluid may be used at the site, related to construction activities. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health.

4 Environmental Review for Purchase and Site Redevelopment, “Environmental Review for Purchase and Site Redevelopment.” Letter to Mr. Xin Jin, December 13, 2014 ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

23 During UST removal, the condition of the UST would be examined, evidence of soil contamination would be observed and soil testing would be required. Impacted soil around the UST could possibly be removed as part of the UST closure. Based on this process, the ultimate disposition of impacts from the UST would be evaluated by the UST removal consultant.

The City has in place a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan should a spill or a hazardous event take place. In the event of a hazardous materials event, the Fire Department is the first
responder and has access to chemical inventories, locations and emergency planning. The Department of Public Works manages the City’s hazardous materials emergency response to spills on the right-of-way and also manages the hazardous materials emergency response contractor.
5 Many areas in the City of Berkeley are known or suspected to have groundwater contamination. The project site is located in one of these Environmental Management Areas (EMA). Given this location, as a standard condition of approval, the City would require preparation of a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan to identify procedures for soil and groundwater management including identification of pollutants and disposal methods. The SGMP would identify permits required and comply with all applicable local, state and regional requirements. The SGMP would provide guidance on managing odors during excavation. The SGMP would also require notification to the City’s Toxics Management Division of any hazardous materials found in soils and groundwater during development. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval by the Toxics Management Division.

As a res
ult of the conditions and policies described above, this potential impact would be less than significant.
c) There are no schools located within ¼-mile from the project site. As a result, this would be categorized as no impact.
d) The site is included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 (Cortese List) as “closed” cases.6 As described in the Environmental Setting, the RWQCB issued a case closure letter for the clean-up case in September 2014, concluding that the current plume is restricted to the site and does not present a current or potential risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and the impact would be less than significant.
e) The project is not located within a public airport land use plan or within two miles of a public use airport. As a result, this would be categorized as no impact.

5 City of Berkeley, 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, June 1, 2014. 6 State Water Resources Control Board. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov. Accessed March 14, 2017.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

24 f) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. There fore, this would
be categorized as no impact.
g) The proposed project would not interfere with emergency and evacuation plans, as specified in the City’s 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
h) Wildlands do not exist within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, this would be categorized as no impact.

5.9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
X

b) 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 level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
X

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
X

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

25 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
X

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site does not contain creeks, wetlands, or other water bodies and is located in Zone X, outside the 100-year flood zone. The project reduces impervious areas (which currently cover the entirety of the site) by approximately 1,500 square feet.

DISCUSSION
a,f) Compliance with the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program NPDES Permit, including C.3 provisions and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to activities conducted on-site would limit the discharge of pollutants to the City's storm drainage system and reduce potential water quality impacts. Since the project would replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious area, as a standard condition of approval, the project would incorporate stormwater controls to enhance water quality. This would include: a) site design measures to reduce impervious surfaces, promote infiltration, and reduce water quality impacts; b) source
control measures to keep pollutants out of
stormwater runoff; c) stormwater treatment measures that are hydraulically sized to remove pollutants from stormwater; d) an O & M (Operations and Maintenance) agreement for all stormwater treatment devices and installations; and e) engineering calculations for all stormwater devices (both mechanical and biological). These measures would filter contaminants from the stormwater before entering San Francisco Bay.

As described in the Environmental Setting in Section 5.6, the gas station and smog test center includes USTs and previous releases presumably associated with hydraulic lifts at the site. RWQCB issued a case closure letter for this case in September 2014, concluding that the current plume is restricted to the site and does not present a current or potential risk to human health or the environment. The closure letter did not include any site management requirements for the residual impact.

During operation of the project, the project is required, by standard conditions, to collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating from the development to an adequate downstream drainage facility. The project proposes to install stormwater planters along the street edge and courtyards to manage and treat runoff. Therefore, these potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project would not use groundwater to provide water for this project. Therefore, this would be categorized as a less-than-significant impact. c-e) The existing site is covered completely by impervious surfaces without any stormwater controls. The project would remove approximately 1,500 square feet of impervious ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

26 surfaces and provide stormwater planters and other open spaces to manage and treat stormwater runoff. As a result, the project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, such that substantial erosion or siltation would result or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or exceed storm drain capacity. There
fore, this impact would be categorized as less than
significant.
g-h) Housing would not be placed within a 100-year flood hazard area. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. Therefore, this would be categorized as no impact. i) The project site is not located within a mapped dam failure inundation area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
j) No enclosed large surface water bodies, which might be subject to potential impacts from seiches, are located in the project vicinity. The project site, at an elevation of 140 feet above sea level, would generally not be subject to coastal hazards (tsunami, sea level rise, or extreme high tides). Therefore, this potential impact would be less than significant.

5.10. L

AND USE PLANNING
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community? X

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is located within an urbanized area.

DISCUSSION
a) The project site is an existing commercial property located in an urbanized area of Berkeley. The proposed project does not involve street closures, linear features or development that would separate land uses or neighborhoods. Redevelopment of the ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

27 project site would not physically divide an established community. There would be no impact.
b) The site is designated as Avenue Commercial in the City’s General Plan and is located in the C-SA zoning district, which is generally intended for community-serving and regional-serving businesses, residential and mixed uses, and development and amenities that support pedestrian-oriented uses. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the C-SA district and the Avenue Commercial designation, and generally consistent with Genera Plan policies. The
project includes use permit requests to exceed the maximum height requirement of 36 feet and 3 stories for mixed use buildings and to exceed 40% lot coverage in the C-SA District, under BMC Section 23E.52.070.D.7. Therefore, the potential impact would be categorized as less than significant.
c) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with existing land use or planning policies of the community.

5.11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is urbanized and is not known to contain any mineral resources.

DISCUS
SION
a-b) The project site is not known to contain any mineral resources and thus would not result in the loss of locally important mineral resources. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to mineral resources.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

28 5.12. NOISE
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
X

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
X

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
External noise sources in the vicinity of the project site are primarily generated by vehicles.

DISCUSSION
a,c,d) The City’s Community Noise Ordinance (Chapter 13.40 of the Municipal Code) establishes maximum permissible day and night noise levels based on the zoning district of the property subject to the noise. In commercial districts where the project site is located, the Ordinance generally allows noise levels up to 65 dBa between 7am and 10pm, and 60 dBa between 10pm and 7am. If the ambient noise levels in an area are greater than the permissible noise levels, then the maximum permissible noise level is to be adjusted to the ambient noise level.

The project would generate added noise, such as vehicle travel, rooftop mechanical equipment, and landscape maintenance activities. However, as described in Section

5.16(a), vehicle trips are expected to decrease as a result of redevelopment of the project site. Therefore, noise levels are not expected to change substantially from those currently ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

29 experienced in the area. Ambient noise levels could decrease for some of the adjacent properties, particularly further south of Ashby Street and west of Shattuck Avenue, due to the shielding of traffic noise by the proposed building. As req uired by Title 24 Building
Code requirements, rooms where windows need to be closed to reach interior noise goals would need to include ventilation or air-conditioning units.

Short
-term construction noise would be generated at the project site. Conditions of approval for the project allow construction hours from 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and noon on Saturday. As a result, this potential impact during operation of the project and during construction would be less than significant.
b) Construction activities could contribute to short-term increases in vibration due to construction equipment, earthmoving, and vertical construction activities. No excessive vibration is anticipated during operation of the project. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant.
e,f) The project site is located outside of an ai
rport land use plan area, and not within the
vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, this would be categorized as no impact.

5.13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

X

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is currently occupied by a gas station and smog test center, with a surface parking lot. The project site is an infill site, surrounded by commercial and residential development.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

30 DISCUSSION
a) The project would add 44 multi-family dwellings to the City’s housing stock, which would contribute to the local population. However, the project is generally consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and population growth would not be substantial.

Public streets and other infrastructure are readily available within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not constitute direct or indirect growth inducing impacts for the City of Berkeley and the potential impact would be less than significant. b-c) The project site is currently occupied by commercial uses and therefore would not displace any existing housing or residents. Therefore, these issues would be categorized as no impact.

5.14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection? X

ii) Police protection? X

iii) Schools? X

iv) Parks? X

v) Other public facilities? X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Fire and police protection are provided by the Berkeley Fire Department and Berkeley Police departments, respectively. Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) provides school services for children in grades K through 12. Berkeley Unified School District has 3 preschools, 11 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, a comprehensive high school, a continuation high school and an Adult School. The City of Berkeley’s Department of Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront manages approximately 235 acres of parks and marinas.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

31 DISCUSSION
a.i-ii) The
project may result in an incremental increase in police and fire service calls due to the addition of 44 households and commercial uses, but this would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts that would require new or expanded facilities. The site is an infill site, within an existing residential neighborhood, located approximately 0.4 miles from Fire Station No. 5, located at 2680 Shattuck Avenue. Adequate access to the project is provided for police, fire, and other emergency vehicles, from Ashby and Shattuck Avenues. Moreover, buildings are designed to meet the requirements of the California Building Code and other applicable City codes and all new buildings would be equipped with automatic fire suppression systems (sprinklers). Police and Fire service capacities exist to adequately serve the project and therefore the potential impact would be less than significant.
a.iii) The project site falls within BUSD’s Southeast Zone for elementary schools, which encompasses Emerson, John Muir, LeConte, and Malcolm X. The site is located within the zone for Willard Middle School located at 2425 Stuart Street. Berkeley High School would accommodate high-school age public school students from the project. BUSD has not formally adopted a ratio to estimate the number of students that would be generated by housing units within the City. However, BUSD generally uses a ratio of 0.5 students per housing unit as an appropriate generation rate for multi-family housing. Using this rate, the project could generate up to 22 students. As a required impact fee, the project sponsor would pay a fee to BUSD to offset the project’s impact to school facilities. As a result, the potential impact would be less than significant.
a.iv-v)The project may result in an incremental increase in the use of parks and public facilities, such as libraries, but would not result in substantial adverse effects or require the construction of new facilities. Moreover, the project includes over 2,000 square feet of open space area for use by residents. As a result, the potential impact would be less than significant.

5.15. RECREATION
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

X

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

32 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is within ½ mile of parks at Malcolm X and Le Conte schools, and the MLK Jr. Youth Services Center.

DISCUSSION
a) The project would result in an incremental increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. However, the addition of 44 households and commercial uses are not expected to result in substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. More
over, the project includes over 2,000 square feet of open space area for use by residents. As a result, the potential impact would be less than significant. b) The project includes landscape improvements along the sidewalk and frontage of the project, but does not include any recreational facilities. Therefore, the potential impact would be less than significant.

5.16. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? X

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
X

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location those results in substantial safety risks?
X

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

33 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Access to the project site garage by vehicle would be provided on Shattuck Avenue. AC Transit
bus stops for the 49 and 18 bus lines are located adjacent at the intersection abutting the project site. The site is also located .23 miles from the Ashby BART Station.

DISCUSSION
a) The City’s level of service (LOS) standard states that an impact is significant when the criteria are reduced from LOS A, B, C, or D to LOS E (with the addition of 2 seconds of average delay) for signalized intersections. Intersections that exceed this service level threshold are considered to be impacted and should be considered for mitigation. For unsignalized intersections, additional considerations are involved, including the number of vehicles on the critical approach, vehicles contributed by the proposed project, and signal warrant analysis. At an unsignalized intersection, mitigation is required if a movement is LOS F, the peak hour signal warrant is met, and a minimum of 10 vehicles are added to the critical movement.

Three intersections were evaluated for potential impacts as a result of the project: Shattuck Avenue at Ashby Avenue, Emerson Street, and the project entrance. All of the intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) and would continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with implementation of the project.
7 Trip generation rates were assessed based on the 9th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and reduced by 19%8 to account for traffic conditions in this part of Berkeley. The project would generate approximately 40 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 41 trips during the PM peak hour. However, traffic counts for the current gas station on the site indicate that it generates more than twice the traffic that is forecast to be generated by the proposed project. Redevelopment of the site would result in a net reduction by approximately half in traffic on the surrounding roadway system: approximately 16 peak hour trips during the AM peak hour and about 44 trips during the PM peak hour.

As result, there would be no significant transportation impacts according to established standards and no off-site traffic or mitigations would be required. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of

7 Abrams Associates, “Transportation Impact Analysis: 3000 Shattuck Avenue Mixed Use Project.” May 31, 2017.
8 Reduction based on data from the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Travel Demand Model, trip generation surveys compiled by ITE and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and census data on vehicle ownership and travel patterns in this part of Berkeley.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

34 effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and the potential impact would be less tha
n significant.
b) The project would not create 100 or more new peak hour trips, and the project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, an LOS standard established by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways. As a result, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency’s Congestion Management Program analysis is not required. There
fore, the project impact would be less than significant. c) The project site is located 9 miles from the closest airport and therefore would not interfere with air traffic patterns nor increase air traffic levels. The refore, the project would
have no im
pact.
d-e) The project’s sidewalks and emergency access have been designed to City standards and would provide adequate sight distances to accommodate the safe turning radius of emergency vehicles and passenger vehicles entering and exiting the driveway. The project would remove three of the four existing curb cuts, potentially reducing conflicts between modes. Therefore, the potential impact would be less than significant. f) The project may incrementally increase the use of BART and bus transit, but is not expected to conflict with or decrease the performance of the existing transit system. There are existing bike lanes (Class II) on Adeline Street and one block to the north Russell Street is a Class III bike route and is designated as a bicycle boulevard. The project would improve the existing sidewalk by removing curb cuts and adding landscaping, and would add 60 bike parking spaces, which may increase the use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, but not to the extent that would decrease the performance of these facilities.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted City policies supporting alternative transportation and the potential impact would be less than significant.

5.17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

X

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

35 ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is located in an urbanized area with no known cultural resources.

DISCUSSION
a.i-ii) The
project site has no known features with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and is not considered eligible for listing with the California Register of Historic Resources. Additionally, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted on July 1, 2015, and establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding tribal cultural resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. The City of Berkeley prepared and sent a formal notification in accordance with the provisions of AB 52 to Andrew Galvan, of The Ohlone Tribe Inc. on May 9, 2017, who alerted the City on May 19, 2017 that no consultation was requested. As a result, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to tribal cultural resources.

5.18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

36 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
X

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provided which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is an urban area served by existing infrastructure and utilities.

DISCUSSION
a,e) In compliance with a July 28, 2014 Consent Decree, the City has implemented a long- term mandated Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Program to eliminate Sanitary Sewer Overflows and reduce storm water infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the sanitary sewer system. Under this program, the City utilizes a comprehensive asset management approach based on complex and evolving hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and condition assessments to repair, replace, or upgrade the City’s portion of the sanitary sewer system, ultimately to aid EBMUD in eliminating discharges from their Wet Weather Facilities by the end of 2035.

The project would generate an incremental increase in domestic wastewater, which would be treate
d by EBMUD treatment facilities. In addition, the project would use an incremental portion of EBMUD’s wet weather treatment capacity. EBMUD is required to meet applicable Regional Water Board treatment requirements. Wastewater discharges that may occur at the project site would be required to comply with the terms of the permit requirements and may be subject to monitoring by EBMUD to ensure that the development’s sewage discharge does not impair the ability to meet wastewater treatment objectives and requirements. Therefore, the impact to wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant.
b) Development of the project on an infill site would not substantially increase water demand or wastewater generation compared to existing conditions, such that new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required. The project would connect to EBMUD’s existing water delivery and sanitary sewer systems within the vicinity of the site. It is anticipated that these pipelines would have sufficient capacity to support project water and wastewater flows. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c) The project would include new connections to existing stormwater infrastructure. The existing site is a parking lot and is entirely paved. Development of the project would result ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

37 in a decrease of impervious surfaces by 1,500 square feet. Runoff would be treated in accordance with C.3 requirements, before flowing to the City’s storm drain system. The project would include drought-tolerant landscaping; stormwater treatment planters; and water-efficient fixtures in residential and commercial kitchens and bathrooms to reduce the demand for and impacts to stormwater infrastructure. This system would manage and treat stormwater runoff from the project and is designed to filter pollutants, regulate flows, and allow infiltration. It would not necessitate the construction or expansion of storm drain facilities off-site that would result in significant environmental effects. As a result, the potential impact would be less than significant.
d) EBMUD owns, operates and maintains the water distribution system in the City. Both supply and demand vary seasonally and become critical during drought periods which can last several years. For planning purposes and looking to the year 2040, EBMUD’s current water supply is sufficient to meet customer needs during normal years and single dry years.
9 EBMUD is pursuing a range of strategies to reduce demand and increase supply (including during multiple dry years), such
as public outreach, leak fixes, water storage,
infrastructure improvements and water conservation measures. EBMUD also imposes a system capacity charge on new developments to fund system maintenance and the development of new water sources. The project sponsor would be required to pay this fee and undertake water conservation measures. In addition, the project would be required to comply with Section 31 of EBMUD’s Water Service Regulations, which require water- efficiency measures and appliances to be installed.
10 The project would also be required to
coordinate with EBMUD and the City of Berkeley Fire Department to assess fire flow requirements and comply with them as part of the project. As result, the potential impact would be less than significant.
f-g) The City of Berkeley provides curbside recycling and refuse collection services to the project site. There are two permitted landfills in Alameda County with the capacity to accommodate solid waste generated in Berkeley: Altamont Landfill and the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. The combined permitted capacity of waste for these two landfills is 95 million cubic yards, which the project would not exceed.

The proposed project’s demolition represents a lower level of material than most projects are required to do in Berkeley, given the low intensity of uses on the site. The existing building’s 1-story footprint and that of the gasoline pump islands is a relatively small component of the site. All demolition and construction waste would be recycled to the extent feasible, and consistent with the Berkeley Green Code (Chapter 19.37 of the Municipal Code). A Waste Diversion Report, with receipts or weigh slips documenting debris disposal or recycling during all phases of the project, would be required as a standard condition of approval. The project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, these issues would be categorized as less-than-significant impacts.

9 East Bay Municipal Utility District. “Water Supply Management Program 2040 Plan.” April 2012. 10 East Bay Municipal Utility District. “Section 31: Water Efficiency Requirements.” July 15, 2015.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

38 5.19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X

DISCUSSION
a) The project is located on an infill site that is completely paved and therefore not supportive of significant habitat or fish, wildlife, or plant species. There are no existing water bodies, or rare, endangered, or threatened species known to inhabit the subject property, nor are there historic resources. Therefore, the project would have a less-than- significant impact on biological and cultural resources. b) Constructing this project would incrementally increase impacts to certain environmental factors as detailed in the preceding sections. However, given that the site is an infill location, surrounded by residential and commercial development and served by existing utilities and public facilities and services, the increases would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this potential impact would be less than significant. c) The project would not include any activities or uses causing substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly or on the environment. The project has been designed to substantially comply with City of Berkeley General Plan and Zoning regulations and would incorporate conditions of approval to meet local codes and regulations, and mitigate potential impacts. The project design, existing regulations, and conditions of approval reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 Shattuck Avenue
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
______________________________________________________________________________

39 Bibliography

Abrams Associates, “Transportation Impact Analysis: 3000 Shattuck Avenue Mixed Use Project.” May 31, 2017.

Alameda County Transportation Commission, Alameda County Transportation Model, Final Model Documentation, August 2015.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines Updated May 2011, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%2 0CEQA%20Guidelines%20May%202011.ashx?la=en. Accessed March 30, 2017.

California Department of Conservation, “Alameda County Important Farmland 2014.” Map published December 2016.

California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Oakland West Quadrangle.
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=r egulatorymaps. Accessed March 14, 2017.

City of Berkeley, 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, June 1, 2014.

East Bay Municipal Utility District, “Water Supply Management Program 2040 Plan.” April 2012.

East Bay Municipal Utility District, “Section 31: Water Efficiency Requirements.” July 15, 2015.

Pangea Environmental Services, Inc, Environmental Review for Purchase and Site Redevelopment, Letter to Mr. Xin Jin, December 13, 2014.

State Water Resources Control Board. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ .

Accessed March 14, 2017.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

PANGEA Environmental Services, Inc.
1710 Franklin Street, Suite 200, Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone 510.836.3700 Facsimile 510.836.3709 www.pangeaenv.com

December 13, 2014

Mr. Xin Jin
3000 Shattuck, LLC
1958A University Ave
Berkeley, 94704

Re: Environmental Review for Purchase and Site Redevelopment U.S. Smog and Gas
3000 Sha ttuck Avenue
Berkeley, California

Dear Mr. Jin:

As requested, Pangea Environmental Services, Inc (Pangea) has prepared this letter summarizing subsurface environmental conditions and regulatory oversight status to assist with your property transaction and planned future site redevelopment for the subject site. This summary is based on our understanding of site conditions from prior site work, a site inspection, review of information on the State Water Board's Geotracker database, and our experience with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB), the California UST Cleanup Fund (Cleanup Fund), the City of Berkeley’s Toxics Management Division (TMD), and the City of Berkeley Department of Planning and Development. This letter also describes potential environmental costs associated with future site redevelopment.

BACKGROUND AND CORRECTIVE ACTION HISTORY
The Site is a retail service station and smog inspection facility, which historically has been characterized and remediated for constituents related to releases from the former underground storage tanks (USTs). In 1997, a 200-gallon waste oil tank was removed. In 2000, three 12,000-gallon gasoline USTs were removed and replaced with new double-walled USTs. Approximately 1,415 tons of soil was removed and disposed off site when the USTs and associated product lines were replaced in 2000. In February 2013, the local lead agency (TMD) confirmed completion of investigation and corrective action, and granted no further action for the release associated with the USTs (case #27540; City of Berkeley, 2013).

An additional investigation was opened at the site in December 2012 to address a potential new release presumably associated with the hydraulic lifts at the site. The new release was discovered during groundwater monitoring activities in October 2007; a sample was collected from the impacted well (A-2) in January 2008. A release notification dated December 12, 2012, listed both BP and property owner Shazada Khan as potential responsible parties. In February and March of 2013, groundwater samples were collected from impacted well A-2 and downgradient well AR-1. Investigations indicated that the nature and extent of hydraulic fluid contamination has been adequately characterized, and the associated plume is decreasing in size.

The RWQCB issued case closure for this case in September 2014. The RWQCB’s closure summary, included in Attachment A, concluded that the ‘current plume is restricted to the site and does not present a current or potential risk to human health or the environment.’ The closure letter did not include any site management requirements for the residual impact.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Environmental Review for Purchase and Site Redevelopment 3000 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA
December 13, 2014

2 REDUCED REGULATORY CONCERN FOR UST SITES
The State Water Resources Control Board recently commenced implementation of a Low Threat Closure Policy (LTCP) in November 2012. The LTCP, acknowledging that petroleum hydrocarbon releases have tended not to pose significant concern at most sites, established general and media-specific criteria for closing low-threat cases. This policy has drastically reduced the amount of corrective action performed for hydrocarbon release sites. In the event of a new authorized release at this site, the new LTCP policy would result in less corrective action than required previously.

CALIFORNIA UST CLEANUP FUNDS
Pangea understands that retail gasoline operations will resume following completion of the property transaction and securing a new tenant. In the event of a future unauthorized release from the UST system, the owner and/or operator of the system can apply to the Cleanup Fund for reimbursement of up to $1MM of corrective action costs. The UST Fund has been reauthorized until December 31, 2024.

SITE CONDITION EVALUATION
Available site data indicates that very limited, if any, residual gasoline-related impact is present at the site.

The most recent subsurface data includes groundwater data from all program monitoring wells in January 2008, from select program wells in March 2010, and, in March 2014, from one well (AR-1) immediately downgradient of the current USTs and dispensers and one well (A-2) downgradient of the building and underground hoist area. No TPHg or BTEX compounds were detected in the onsite wells in 2008, 2010 and 2014. The only residual impact in groundwater is very low concentrations of the former gasoline additive MTBE (MTBE use was banned after 2004) and limited oil range impact, apparently related to a prior release of hydraulic oil. The depth to water has ranged from approximately 5 to 11 ft depth below grade surface.

Compliance testing of the fueling facilities was performed recently. Pangea is not aware of any recent releases at the site.

REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES
Pangea understands that prospective future redevelopment will involve only limited subsurface work to install site utilities and the building foundation; no other subgrade development is planned. In conjunction with future redevelopment, the City of Berkeley may require a soil and groundwater management plan to ensure proper handling and disposal of material during construction. If significant hydrocarbon impact is found during UST removal or redevelopment activities, some soil removal and subsurface soil and soil gas sampling may be required by the oversight agencies. To help mitigate potential vapor intrusion from any residual hydrocarbon impact, the local agencies may require mitigation measures such as a passive ventilation system and/or vapor barrier. Estimated cost for these mitigation measures, if implemented during redevelopment, ranges from $10,000 to $100,000. The oil range impact does not represent a significant vapor intrusion concern. However, the estimated cost to excavate the oil impact, if performed during redevelopment, ranges from $10,000 to $50,000.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Environmental Review for Purchase and Site Redevelopment 3000 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA
December 13, 2014

3 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above information, Pangea concludes the following:
 The local agencies have issued regulatory case closure for two site cases in 2013 and 2014, concluding that the plume is restricted to the site and does not present a current or potential risk to human health or the environment. The closure letter did not include any site management requirements for the residual impact.
 Groundwater data from March 2014 immediately downgradient of the USTs and dispensers indicates that no new unauthorized release of gasoline at that time. Since March 2014 compliance testing has been performed to further evaluate the potential for hydrocarbon release.  In the event of a future unauthorized release from the UST system, the owner and/or operator of the system can apply to the California UST Cleanup Fund for reimbursement of up to $1MM of corrective action costs; the UST Fund has been reauthorized until December 31, 2024.  Based on future redevelopment plans, construction activity is not anticipated to extend to groundwater (5 to 11 ft depth) where limited residual hydrocarbon may be present.  If significant hydrocarbon impact is found during UST removal or redevelopment activities, soil removal and soil/soil gas sampling may be required by the oversight agencies. To help mitigate potential vapor intrusion from any residual hydrocarbon impact, the local agencies may require mitigation measures such as a passive ventilation system and/or vapor barrier. Estimated cost for these mitigation measures, if implemented during redevelopment, ranges from $10,000 to $100,000. The oil range impact does not represent a significant vapor intrusion concern. However, the estimated cost to excavate the oil impact, if performed during redevelopment, ranges from $10,000 to $50,000.

Pangea hopes this letter provides valuable information. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (510) 435-8664 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Pangea Environmental Services, Inc.

Bob Clark-Riddell, P.E.

Principal Engineer

Attachments: A - Case Closure Letters and Recent Groundwater Data ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

ATTACHMENT A

Case Closure Letters and Recent Groundwater Data

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

1 I
rn
LEGEND

MONITORING
WELL
+ RECOVERY WELL

WO WASTE OIL

UST UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
"<TP VX,y *;

2. SITE DIMENSIONS AND FACILITY LOCATIONS NOT VERIFIED. 30'

GRAPHIC SCALE
BP FACILITY NO. 414
3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

SITE PLAN
Ot ARCADIS
FIGURE
1 ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Tabl e 1
Summary
Of Groundwater Monitoring Data
3000 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, California
Mineral Hydraulic Transmission
TPHg MTBE TPHd TPHmo Oil Oil Oil Jet A
Well ID Date (M9/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L.) (ug/L.) A-2
1/31/2008 1,300 28 1,900 <1,900 3,500 3,300 3,700 470
A-2 2/13/2014 <50 ~ 270 330 350 —
-
~ A-2
3/10/2014 <50 6.9 410 Y 360 410 Y 790 Y 670 Y <50
AR-1
1/31/2008 <50 2.8 100 <470 -
- -
~
AR-1 2/13/2014 <50 - 86 <100
- -
-
-
AR-1
3/10/2014 <50 1.6 130 Y <300 <300 310 <300 <50
Notes: TPHg - total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline range organics TPHd - total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel range organics TPHmo - total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil range organics Y - sample exhibits chromatographic pattern which does not resemble standard ug/L - micrograms per liter
ARCADIS Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Shell monitoring
well
Shell trench extraction well
Shell trench well
Destroyed well
ARCO monitoring well
NS
A(3)
GO
t
+
Well
ELEV
GRO
Benzene
MTBE
SAorA
ARCO soil vapor extraction well
ARCO recovery well x
'Well designation
v Ground-water elevation (ft MSL)
v Concentration of GRO, Benzene
and MTBE in ground water (ug/L)
~ Sampling Frequency
Not detected
Not sampled
Sampled Annually, 3rd Quarter
Gauge Only
SA(1,3) Sampled Semi-Annually, 1st & 3rd Quarters
Approximate ground-water flow
direction and gradient (ft/ft)
Ground-water elevation contour (ft MSL)
;o.o3
135
7^
Former
Service
Station
NOTE: SITE MAP ADAPTED FROM URS FIGURES. SITE
DIMENSIONS AND FACILITY LOCATIONS NOT VERIFIED.
50 SCALE (ft)
100 BROADBENT & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING, WATER RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL
1324 Mangrove Ave. Suite 212, Chico, California
Project No.: 06-08-603 Date: 2/28/08
Station #414
3000 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, California
Ground-Water Elevation Contour
and Analytical Summary Map
31 January 2008
Drawing
1 ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Planning and Developmen
t Department
Toxics Management Division
February 14, 2013
British Petroleum
c/o Janet Wager
BP Remediation Management
201 Helios Way
Houston, Texas 77079
Subject: Approval of Request for No Further Action
Arco # 00414, Berkeley Case No 27540;
RWQCB No. 01-0102 3000 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, California 94702 Dear Ms. Wager,
This letter confirms the completion of a site investigation and corrective action for the underground storage tank formerly located at the above-described location. Thank you for your cooperation throughout this investigation. Your willingness and promptness in responding to our inquiries concerning the former underground storage tank is greatly appreciated.

Based on information in the above-referenced file and with the provision that the information provided to this agency was accurate and representative of site conditions, this agency finds the site investigation and corrective action carried out at your underground storage tank site is in compliance with the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 25296.10 of the Health and Safety code and with the corrective action regulations adopted pursuant to Section 25299.3 of the Health and Safety Code and that no further action related to the petroleum release at the site is required. This notice is issued pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 25296.1 of the Health and Safety Code.

Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
Hazardous Materials Specialist, II
Cc: Shazada Khan, U.S. Smog and Gas, 3000 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, California 94705 2118 Milvia Street, Suite 200, Berkeley, California 94704 TEL: (510) 981-7460 TDD: (510) 981-6903 FAX: (510) 981-7470 ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

September 3, 2014

File No. 01S0746 (RL)

BP West Coast Products, LLC
c/o Ms. Janet Wager
BP Remediation Management
201 Helios Way
Houston, Texas 77079

SUBJECT: No Further Action, U.S. Smog and Gas, 3000 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, Alameda County

Dear Ms. Wager:

This letter confirms the completion of site investigation and remedial action for the pollutant releases at the subject site. The attached Case Closure Summary describes remedial activities and our case-closure rationale.

Based upon the available information, including the current land use, and with the provision that the information provided to this agency was accurate and representative of site conditions, no further action related to the pollutant releases at the subject site is required.

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Randy Lee of my staff at (510) 622-2375, [e-mail: [email protected]].

Sincerely,

Bruce H. Wolfe
Executive Officer

Attachment: Case Closure Summary
cc w/attach: Mailing List (next page)

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

NFA - 3000 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley - 2 -

Mailing List:

Nabil Al-Hadithy
Manager
City of Berkeley
2118 Milvia Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, California 94704

U.S. Smog and Gas
3000 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA, 947054

Hollis Phillips
Arcadis US Inc.,
100 Montgomery Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94539
[email protected]

Khan Shazada & Farhat
47856 Avalon Heights Terrace
Fremont, CA 94539

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

CASE CLOSURE SUMMARY

I. AGENCY INFORMATION Date: 9/3/2014

Agency Name: SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Address: 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 City/State/Zip: Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-622-2300 Responsible Staff Person: Randy Lee Title: Water Resource Control Engineer

II. SITE INFORMATION

Site Facility Name: U.S. Smog and Gas (a.k.a. ARCO # 00414) Site Facility Address: 3000 Shattuck Ave Berkeley
RB Case No.: 01S0746 (aka 01-0102) Local Case No.: 27540 Priority:

Responsible Parties (include addresses and phone numbers) Jim Smith BP Remediation Management, 201 Helios Way, Houston, Texas, 77079 (713) 323-4153

Tank No. Size in Gallons Contents Closed In—Pla ce/Removed? Date 1* 200 waste oil removed 11/19/1997
2* 12,000 gasoline removed 8/11/2000
3* 12,000 gasoline removed 8/11/2000
4* 12,000 gasoline removed 8/11/2000
(* Closed by
City of
Berkeley on
2/14/2013)

III. RELEASE AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION
Cause and Type of Release: leakage from USTs and hydraulic lifts Site characterization complete? yes Date Approved by Oversight Agency: 2/14/2013 Monitoring wells installed? yes Number: 6 Proper screened interval? yes Highest GW Depth Below Ground Surface: 11.28 ft
bgs
Lowest Depth: 4.61 ft
bgs
Flow Direction: ranged from northwest
to southwest, with the predominant
direction to the west
Most Sensitive Current Use: municipal, industrial process, industrial service and agricultural are identified in the Basin Plan
Most Sensitive Potential Use
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

- 2 -

and Probability of Use : municipal, industrial process, industrial service and agricultural are identified in the Basin Plan Are drinking water wells affected? no Aquifer Name: n/a Is surface water affected? no Nearest surface water name: San Francisco Bay Off-Site Beneficial Use Impacts (Addresses/Locations): none Report(s) on file? yes Where is report(s) filed? GeoTracker

TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF AFFECTED MATERIAL
Material Amount (Include Units) Action (Treatment or Disposal w/Destination) Date Tanks 4 1 waste oil tank - 11/1 9/1997- unknown
3 gasoline USTs -8/11/2000- Disposal (Mid-
Valley Landfill)
11/19/1997 &
8/11/2000
Piping unknown Disposal (Mid-Valley Landfill) 8/11/2000 Free Product 400 gallon Disposal (DeMeeno/Kerdoon in Compton CA) 8/11/2000 Soil 1,416 ton Disposal (Forward Landfill, Manteca, CA) 8/11/2000 Groundwater 1,200 gallon Disposal (Seaport Environmental Facility, Redwood City, CA)
8/11/2000
Barrels
MAXIMUM DOCUMENTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS—BEFORE AND AFTER CLEANUP POLLUTANT Soil (ppm) Water (ppb) POLLUTANT Soil (ppm) Water (ppb) Before After Before After Before After Before After
TPHg
27540-
closed)
8,410 n/a 31,000 <50 TPHg
(01S0746)
n/a n/a 1,300 <50
Benzene
(27540-
closed)

3.44 n/a 5,900 <0.5 MTBE
(01S0746)
n/a n/a 28 6.9
Toluene
(27540-
closed)
136 n/a 6,500 <0.5 TPHd
(01S0746)
n/a n/a 1,900 410
Ethylbenzen
e (27540-
closed)
127 n/a 620 <0.5 TPHmo
(01S0746)
n/a n/a <1,900 360
Xylenes
(27540-
closed)
531 n/a 4,600 <0.5 Mineral oil
(01S0746)
n/a n/a 3,500 410
MTBE
(27540-
closed)

19.8 n/a 8,400 2,130 Hydraulic oil
(01S0746
n/a n/a 3,300 790
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

- 3 -

TPHd
(27540-
closed)
1,920 n/a n/a 100 Transmissio
n Oil
(01S0746)
n/a n/a 3,700 670
Lead
(27540-
closed)
<7.5 n/a n/a n/a Jet A
(01S0746)
n/a n/a 470 <50
Comments (Depth of Remediation, etc.):
• GRI removed an oil/water separator in June 1992.
• GSI conducted vapor extraction tests on August 18 and November 19, 1992, using vapor extraction wells AV-1 through AV-6. Based on the results of the two tests, vapor extraction was deemed a suitable remedy based on an estimated radius of influence of 20 to 30 feet (GSI 1992c).There is no available documentation stating that recovery well AR-1 or the six vapor extraction wells were ever used for full-scale remediation purposes. • Oxygen release compound (ORC) socks were used at wells AR-1 and A-1 through A-4 for various time periods from the third quarter 1996 to the first quarter 1997.
• Cambria removed three fiberglass USTs in August 2000 and installed new tanks. • Cambria removed approximately 1,415 tons of soil and disposed of the soil off site in 2000 when the tanks and associated product lines were excavated.

IV. CLOSURE
Does completed corrective action protect existing beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Plan? yes Does completed corrective action protect potential beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Plan? yes Does corrective action protect public health for current land use? yes Site Management Requirements: none

Monitoring Wells Decommissioned: A-1 Number Decommissioned: 1 Number Retained: 5 (to be destroyed upon closure)
List Enforcement Actions Taken: none
List Enforcement Actions Rescinded: none

V. TECHNICAL REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC., THAT THIS CLOSURE RECOMMENDATION

WAS BASED UPON
Case Closure Summary Report 6/9/2010
Approval of Request for No Further Action 2/14/2013
BP414 Summary of Investigation Results 7/9/14
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

- 4 -

VI. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, DATA, ETC.

The Site is an operational service station, which historically has been characterized and remediated for constituents related to releases from the former USTs. In February 2013, confirmation of completion of investigation and corrective action was given for the Site, and no further action was granted for the release associated with the USTs (case #27540; City of Berkeley, 2013).

However, an additional investigation was opened at the Site in December 2012 prior to closure of the original case to address a potential new release likely associated with the hydraulic lifts present at the Site. The new release was discovered during groundwater monitoring activities in October 2007, a sample from the impacted well was not collected until first quarter 2008. The release notification, dated December 12, 2012, lists both BP and the current property owner (Shazada Khan) as potential responsible parties (PRP). In February and March of 2013, groundwater samples were collected from the impacted well and the downgradient wells. The investigations indicate that the nature and extent of hydraulic fluid contamination has been adequately characterized, and the associated plume is decreasing in size.

In June 2013, the case involving the potential release associated with the hydraulic lifts was referred to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board (Case # 01S0746, RWQCB). The current plume is restricted to the Site and does not present a current or potential risk to human health or the environment. Based on results of characterization activities, ARCADIS requested case closure on behalf of BP on July 9, 2014. This case closure summary prepared by the Regional Water Board, although included prior information related to the UST releases, is intended to close investigation associated with the potential release associated with the hydraulic lifts.

This document and the related CASE CLOSURE LETTER shall be retained by the lead agency as part of the official site file.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE MIXED USE PROJECT3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE MIXED USE PROJECT Transportation Impact Analysis
City of Berkeley
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Prepared by:

Abrams Associates
1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
MAY 31, 2017
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

3000 Shattuck Avenue Mixed Use Project
in the
City of Berkeley

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 3000 Shattuck Avenue mixed use project is proposed to include 44 apartment units and 4,015 of retail/restaurant space. Figure 1 shows the location of the project and the surroundin g
roadway network and Figure 2 shows the ground floor site plan for the project. Based on the trip generation forecasts the project would result in a net reduction in traffic on the surrounding street system. Traffic counts of the current gas station on the site indicate it generates more than twice the traffic that is forecast to be generated by the proposed project. The project itself is forecast to generate approximately 40 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 41 trips during the PM peak hour. However, please note these numbers do not take into account removal of the trips from the service station that currently operates on the site. Again, if the removal of traffic from the existing service station is accounted for then the implementation of the proposed project results in a reduction in traffic on the surrounding roadway system.

Based on a detailed analysis conducted according to City’s guidelines there would be no significant transportation impacts according to established standards and no off-site traffic or transportation mitigations would be required.
1 The City’s base code requirement for the project
is 43 parking spaces and the project is proposing to accommodate its parking demand by providing 17 parking spaces which would include 5 car share spaces. The project would exceed the requirements for on-site bicycle parking by providing parking for 48 bicycles and is located less than four blocks from the Ashby BART Station. 2) INTRODUCTION
This transportation impact analysis describes the existing and future conditions for transportation and circulation both with and without the proposed project. The study presents information on the regional and local roadway networks, the pedestrian and transit conditions, and provides an analysis of the effects on transportation facilities associated with the project.

This study also describes the regulatory setting; the criterion used for determining the significance of environmental impacts; and summarizes potential environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures when necessary. This study has been conducted in accordance with the requirements and methodologies set forth by the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, Caltrans, and the applicable provisions of CEQA. 3) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section of the report describes the roadways, traffic conditions and other existing transportation characteristics in the vicinity of the project. The primary basis for the traffic operations portion of the analysis is the peak hour level of service at the key study intersections.

In this report, these peak commute hours will be identified as the AM and PM peak hours. 1 Guide for Development of Traffic Impact Reports, City of Berkeley Office of Transportation, Berkeley, CA, January, 2009.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

ASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVE
ADEL

INE STREET

EMERSON
ST
REE
T
ESSE
X S
TR
EET
PR
IN
CE ST
REET

TREMONT STREET

RUSSELL STREET

WHEELER STREET

FULTON STREET

OTIS STREET

LORINA STREETPROJECT

LOCATION
Chevron
Gas
Enterprise
Rent-A-Car
3000 Shattuck Avenue

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Berkeley
FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

N
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

CROSSWALK

CROSSWALK

CROSSWALK

CROSSWALK
property line corners as
basis of targets.

SHATTUCK
AVENUE

ASHBY AVENUE
-

ROOF DECK
(5TH FLOOR)

COURTYARD
BELOW
(2ND FLOOR)
27' - 5" 23' - 4" 25' - 5" 6' - 9" 28' - 8"
3 STORIES
4 STORIES
5 STORIES
NO SETBACK REQ.

NOSETBACKREQ.

ADJACENT MULTI-FAMILY

BUILDING
3 STORIES
27'-11" 22'-9" 22'-8" 8'-8" 28'-11" 15'-0"
29' - 1" 25' - 9" 43' - 4" 6' - 9"
30'-2" 30'-11" 13'-1" 36'-9" 13'-11"

FLAT ROOF

ELEVATOR / STAIR PENTHOUSE
-

PARKING AT GRADE

FLAT ROOF /

MECHANICAL AREA
5 STORIES

ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY
HOME

ACCESSORY

STRUCTURE

PLANTING AT GRADE

SIDEWALK
10'-1"

SIDEWALK
12'-2"

ENTERPRISE

RENT-A-CAR
112' - 2"
104' - 11"

ROOF OVERHANGAWNING BELOW
5'-011/16"
3'-33/8"
5'-77/16"
125'-11"
1/ A9.6
2/ A9.6
3/ A9.6
4/ A9.6
N
DRC
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 03/16/2017 A1.0A
PROPOSED SITE PLAN3000 SHATTUCK @ ASHBY
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE, INC. 0 5 10 20 40
3000 Shattuck Avenue

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Berkeley
FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

13.6'

14.0'

2.5'
LOT 3
LOT 23

50.00'
124.95'
1/ A2.1
1/ A2.2
1/ A2.3
1/ A2.0
1 A3.0
1 A3.2
- 60 SPACES
PG&E /

ELECTRICAL
MAIL
ASHBY AVE.

SHATTUCK AVE.
12345
67891011
12 13 14 15 16 17
1 A3.1
5' - 0" 19' - 2" 23' - 4" 27' - 7" 30' - 1" 6' - 11"

MECHANICAL

PARKING
17 SPACES

PLANTING
STRIP, S.L.D.

STORMWATER

PLANTER

NEW CURB CUT
ELEV.
5' - 0" 95' - 4" 4' - 7"
67' - 11"57' - 0"

ADJACENT BUILDING

BUILDING EDGE ABOVE

AWNING ABOVE

AWNING ABOVE

MECHANICAL SHAFT

TO ROOF
A5.0
1 A5.1
2 PLANTINGWOOD FENCE ALONG

PROPERTY LINE
4 YD
BIN
8' - 5" 8' - 0" 1' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 1' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 6" 8' - 5" 8' - 0" 1' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 1' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 1' - 0" 16' - 0" 1' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 5"
7' - 0"
A5.2
1 COMMERCIAL
TRASH

FINAL TRASH ROOM

LOCATION

TO BE DETERMINED BY
TENANT

EXIT PATH
-

EDGE OF

PODIUM ABOVE

NEW STREET TREES,
S.L.D.

MAIN RESIDENTIAL

BLDG ENTRY
18' - 0"

CURB STOP
(CAR PROJECTS OVER), S.L.D.
18' - 1"
BIKE RACKS, S.L.D.
24' - 0"

STORMWATER
PLANTER, S.L.D.
25' - 11"24' - 0"18' - 0"55' - 6"1' - 6"
4 YD
BIN
4 YD
BIN
4 YD
BIN
5'-5"
23'-7"
543 SF
LOBBY
101
2173 SF
RETAIL 1
104
509 SF

BIKE PARKING
102236 SF

RESIDENTIAL TRASH
103
121 SF
STAIR 2
UNIT 114
151 SF
STAIR 1
UNIT 113
1414 SF
RETAIL 2
105
24'-7"
9' - 8"28' - 11"8' - 8"22' - 8"29' - 3"20' - 5"
K - 2 0 0 5 K I NGSTONC _ L A V A TORY V I T R EOUS C H I N AK - 2 0 0 5 K I NGSTONC _ L A V A TORY V I T R EOUS C H I N A

BAR HEIGHT COUNTER

AT EXTERIOR
1/ A9.6
2/ A9.6
3/ A9.6
4/ A9.6

MECHANICAL SHAFT

TO ROOF

FINAL RESTROOM

LAYOUT BY TENANT
GATE
5' - 2"
3' - 6"
DRC
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 03/16/2017 A1.1
GROUND FLOOR PLAN3000 SHATTUCK @ ASHBY
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE, INC.

N
0 4' 8' 16' 32'
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

3.1 Project Study Intersections

Based on the project’s trip generation and the potential for traffic impacts an analysis of the intersections of Shattuck Avenue with Ashby Avenue, Emerson Street, and the project entrance was required. Figure 1 presents the location of the project study intersections where a detailed level of service analysis was prepared.

3.2 Traffic Analysis Scenarios

The study intersections were evaluated for the following six scenarios:

 Scenario 1: Existing Conditions – Level of Service (LOS) based on existing peak hour volumes and existing intersection configurations.

 Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project – Existing traffic volumes plus trips from the proposed project.

 Scenario 3: Baseline (No Project) Conditions – The Baseline scenario is based on the existing volumes plus growth in background traffic (for two years) plus the traffic from all reasonably foreseeable developments that could substantially affect the volumes at the project study intersection.

 Scenario 4: Baseline Plus Project Conditions – This scenario is based on the Baseline traffic volumes plus the trips that would be generated by the proposed project.

3.3 Existing Roadway Network

As shown on Figure 1, the roads that would be primarily affected by the project are Shattuck Avenue, Ashby Avenue and Emerson Street. The following is a brief description of these roadways:

 Shattuck Avenue – Shattuck Avenue is a four lane arterial roadway extending south from Vine Street to terminate to the south at Telegraph Avenue in the City of Oakland.

It serves school, residential and commercial traffic and is an important north-south travel route. It is designated as a major street and a primary transit route in the City’s General Plan.

 Ashby Avenue – Ashby Avenue is a two lane roadway extending east from I-80 to terminate to the west at Tunnel Road. It is also designated as State Route 13 in the City of Berkeley. It serves school, residential and commercial traffic and is an important east-west travel route.

 Emerson Street – Emerson Street is a two-lane local residential roadway in the City of Berkeley that extends west from Webster Street and terminates at Adeline Street.

These roadways serve school, residential and commercial traffic.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

3.4 Intersection Analysis Methodology

Existing operational conditions at the study intersection was evaluated according to the requirements set forth by the City of Berkeley. Analysis of traffic operations was conducted using the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Level of Service (LOS) methodology with Synchro software.1

Level of service is an expression, in the form of a scale, of the relationship between the capacity of an intersection (or roadway segment) to accommodate the volume of traffic moving through it at any given time. The level of service scale describes traffic flow with six ratings ranging from A to F, with “A” indicating relatively free flow of traffic and “F” indicating stop-and-go traffic characterized by traffic jams.

As the amount of traffic moving through a given intersection or roadway segment increases, the traffic flow conditions that motorists experience rapidly deteriorate as the capacity of the intersection or roadway segment is reached. Under such conditions, there is general instability in the traffic flow, which means that relatively small incidents (e.g., momentary engine stall) can cause considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays that lead to traffic congestion. This near- capacity situation is labeled level of service (LOS) E.

Beyond LOS E, the intersection or roadway segment capacity has effectively been exceeded, and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between LOS, average control delay, and the volume to capacity ratio at signalized intersections. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between LOS and delay at unsignalized intersections

For signalized intersections, The City of Berkeley’s LOS standards are based on the average delay for the entire intersection. The HCM methodology determines the capacity of each lane group approaching the intersection. The LOS is then based on average control delay (in seconds per vehicle) for the various movements within the intersection. A combined weighted average control delay and LOS are presented for the intersection. A summary of the HCM results and copies of the detailed HCM LOS calculations are included in the appendix to this report.

For unsignalized (all-way stop controlled and two-way stop controlled) intersections, the average control delay and LOS operating conditions are calculated by approach (e.g., northbound) and movement (e.g., northbound left-turn) for those movements that are subject to delay. Operating conditions for unsignalized intersections are presented for the worst approach.

1 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2011 ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

TABLE 1

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service Description of Operations
Average Delay
(sec/veh)
Volume to
Capacity Ratio
A
Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully
used and no vehicle waits longer than one red
indication.
< 10
< 0.60
B Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase
is fully used. Drivers begin to feel restricted. > 10 to 20 > 0.61 to 0.70 C
Acceptable Delays: Major approach phase may
become fully used. Most drivers feel somewhat
restricted.
> 20 to 35 > 0.71 to 0.80
D
Tolerable Delays: Drivers may wait through no
more than one red indication. Queues may
develop but dissipate rapidly without excessive
delays.
> 35 to 55 > 0.81 to 0.90
E
Significant Delays: Volumes approaching
capacity. Vehicles may wait through several
signal cycles and long vehicle queues from
upstream.
> 55 to 80 > 0.91 to 1.00
F
Excessive Delays: Represents conditions at
capacity, with extremely long delays. Queues
may block upstream intersections.
> 80 > 1.00
SOURCES: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2011.

TABLE 2

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

Level of
Service Description of Operations
Average Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
A No delay for stop-contro lled approaches. 0 to 10 B Operations with minor delays. > 10 to 15
C Operations with moderate delays. > 15 to 25
D Operations with some delays. > 25 to 35
E Operations with high delay s and long queues. > 35 to 50 F Operation with extreme congestion, with very high delays and long queues unacceptable to most drivers. > 50
SOURCE: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2011.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

3.5 Existing Intersection Capacity Conditions

The existing intersection geometry at the project study intersections is presented in Figure 3.

The existing traffic volumes at these intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are presented in Figure 4. Traffic counts at the intersection were conducted in August, 2014.

Table 3 summarizes the associated LOS computation results for the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions at these intersections. As shown in Table 3, all of the study intersections currently have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Please note the detailed LOS calculations are included in the technical appendix to this report.

3.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Bicycle paths, lanes and routes are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities, which are defined by Caltrans as being in one of the following three classes:

Class I – Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.

Class II – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.

Class III – Provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.

There are existing bike lanes (Class II) on Adeline Street and one block to the north Russell Street is a Class III bike route and is designated as an official bicycle boulevard with signage and pavement markings encouraging motorists to share the road with bicyclists.

TABLE 3

EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

EXISTING
Delay LOS
1 SHATTUCK AVENUE AT ASHBY AVENUE Signalized AM 13.3 B
PM 13.8 B
2 SHATTUCK AVENUE AT THE PROJECT ENTRANCE Side Street Stop AM N/A N/A

PM N/A N/A
3 SHATTUCK AVENUE AT EMERSON STREET Side Street Stop AM 15.4 B PM 23.3 C

SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2015
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

ASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVE

ADELINE STREET

EMERSON
ST
REET
ESSE
X S
TREET
PR
IN
CE
STR
EET

TREMONT STREET

RUSSELL
STREET

WHEELER STREET

FULTON STREET

OTIS STREET

LORINA STREETPROJECT

LOCATION
Chevron
Gas
Enterprise
Rent-A-Car
1 2
3 3000 Shattuck Avenue

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Berkeley
FIGURE 3 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
1 ASHBY AVEASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
2 SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE

PROJECT ENTRANCEPROJECT ENTRANCE
3 EMERSON STEMERSON ST

SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
N

STOP STOP
STOP
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

ASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVE

ADELINE STREET

EMERSON
ST
REET
ESSE
X S
TREET
PR
IN
CE
STR
EET

TREMONT STREET

RUSSELL
STREET

WHEELER STREET

FULTON STREET

OTIS STREET

LORINA STREETPROJECT

LOCATION
Chevron
Gas
Enterprise
Rent-A-Car
1 2
3 3000 Shattuck Avenue

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Berkeley
FIGURE 4 EXISTING AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
1 ASHBY AVEASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
170 (118)
562 (470)
26 (25)
144 (178)
27 (35)
467 (488)
62 (61)
493 (580)
53 (78)
20 (31)
457 (492)
39 (33)

SHATTUCK AVE

PROJECT ENTRANCE

SHATTUCK AVE

PROJECT ENTRANCE
2 FUTURE INTERSECTIONFUTURE INTERSECTION
3 EMERSON STEMERSON ST

SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
12 (9)
1 (2)
7 (6)
6 (15)
6 (11)
455 (587)
12 (13)
2 (2)
18 (17)
8 (4)
340 (526)
16 (18)
N
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

3.7 Transit Service

The Ashby Avenue Berkeley BART station is located on Adeline Street at Ashby, which is just a little more than a block from the project site. This station is located on the Richmond-Fremont Line which connects to other destinations in the Bay Area, including San Francisco, at the MacArthur Station.

There is also extensive bus transit service provided by Alameda-Contra Costa County (AC) Transit at the BART Station. The following lines operate either adjacent to the site on Ashby Avenue or a block from the project on Adeline Street:

18: Downtown Albany, Downtown Berkeley, Downtown Oakland, and Montclair via Shattuck Avenue, Martin Luther King Blvd, Broadway, and Park Boulevard. 49: Downtown Berkeley BART to Rockridge BART via Dwight Way, Ashby Avenue, College Avenue. Returns via Claremont Avenue and Durant Avenue. 800: (All Nighter) Richmond BART to Market St. and Van Ness Ave, S.F., via Macdonald Ave, San Pablo Ave, University Ave, Telegraph Ave and downtown Oakland. Returns via Market St. and West Oakland BART.

F: (Transbay) UC Campus to Transbay Temporary Terminal, San Francisco via Shattuck Ave, Adeline St and 40th St.

Please note the nearest bus stops for Routes 18, 49, and 800 are directly adjacent to the site.

Bus stops with access to the transbay F line are located two blocks away at Ashby Avenue and Adeline Street.

4) REGULATORY CONTEXT

Existing policies, laws and regulations that apply to the proposed project are summarized below.

4.1 State

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction over State highways.

Any improvements to these roadways would require Caltrans’ approval. This project will not have any effect on State Highways.

4.2 Local

City of Berkeley General Plan - The Transportation and Circulation Element the City of Berkeley General Plan addresses the location and extent of existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. The General Plan identifies roadway and transit goals and policies that have been adopted to ensure that the transportation system of the City will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth. These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and implementation measures for an integrated, multi- modal transportation system that will safely and efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the City.

4.3 Significance Criteria

The City’s level of service standard states that an impact is significant when the criteria are reduced from LOS A, B, C, or D to LOS E (with the addition of two (2) seconds of average delay) for signalized intersections. Intersections that exceed this service level threshold are considered to be impacted and should be considered for mitigation. Exceptions to the LOS D ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

standard arise when the project is not expected to add more than two seconds at an intersection going from LOS D to LOS E or more than three seconds of delay at an intersection that is already operating at LOS E. In addition, it would also be considered a significant impact if a project would increase the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio by more than 0.01 at an intersection that is already operating at LOS F.

For unsignalized intersections, additional considerations are involved, including the number of vehicles on the critical approach, vehicles contributed by the proposed project, and signal warrant analysis. At an unsignalized intersection, mitigation is required if a movement is LOS F, the peak hour signal warrant is met, and a minimum of 10 vehicles are added to the critical movement.

According to CEQA guidelines, a project would also have a significant impact if it would:
 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit.  Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level-of-service standards, and travel demand measures, or other standards established by a county congestion management agency for designated roadways.  Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.
 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.  Result in an internal circulation system design that does not meet City standards.

5) IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 Project Trip Generation

The vehicle trip generation for the project is shown in Table 4. The trip generation rates are based on the ITE rates for an office building (Land Use 710) taken from the 9th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The rates have been adjusted (as described below) to account for traffic conditions in this part of Downtown Berkeley.

Berkeley Residential Trip Generation - Since the project is located in an urban area with BART access and numerous bus connections the vehicle trip rate per unit is less than would be generated by a typical apartment building. Please note the project is less than four blocks from the Ashby BART station which is less than a 5 minute walk.

For this project, a trip reduction of 19% has been applied to the unfiltered trip generation rate to account for conditions in the vicinity of the Ashby BART Station. The ITE trip generation rates are based on surveys of primarily suburban locations and this reduction intended to account for walk, bicycle, and transit trips as well as shared trips with the residential component of the project. The 19% reduction was based on data from the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Travel Demand Model, trip generation surveys compiled by ITE and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and census data on vehicle ownership and travel patterns in this part of the City of Berkeley.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

TABLE 4

TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS

Land Use ITE
Code Size ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
ITE Apartment Rates - Trips per Unit 220 6.65 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 Apartment Trip Generation 44
Units 256 3 16 19 15 8 23
Reduction for Non-Auto Trips (19%) 49 1 3 4 3 1 4
Subtotals for the Apartments 207 3 13 16 12 7 19

ITE Restaurant Rates - Trips per ksf 932 127.15 5.62 5.19 10.81 5.81 4.04 9.85 Restaurant Trip Generation 4,015
sq. ft. 511 22 21 43 23 16 39
Reduction for Pass-By/Non-Auto
Trips (43%) 220 10 9 19 10 7 17
Subtotals for the Restaurant 291 12 12 24 13 9 22

Subtotals from the New Land Uses 498 15 25 40 25 16 41

Existing Service Station with Smog
Inspection and Mini Mart
8 fueling
stations
590 29 27 56 41 44 85

Net New Trip Generation for the
Project -92 -14 -2 -16 -16 -28 -44

SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) and the Trip Generation Handbook (2nd Edition)

Based on the trip generation forecasts the project would actually result in a reduction in traffic on the surrounding street system. Traffic counts of the current gas station on the site indicate it generates more than twice the traffic that is forecast to be generated by the proposed project.

The traffic associated with the new project is forecast to be about 40 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 41 trips during the PM peak hour. The trips generated by this proposed development are estimated for the peak commute hours which represent the peak of adjacent street traffic.

To be conservative no reductions were taken to account for the existing service station in the analysis of traffic operations. This was, in part, because the proposed project would focus its traffic at one driveway versus the existing service station which is served by four separate driveways/curb cuts. Again, once the removal of traffic from the existing service station is accounted for the implementation of the proposed project would result in a net reduction in traffic on the surrounding roadway system. This is estimated to be a reduction of about 16 peak hour trips during the AM peak hour and about 44 trips during the PM peak hour. In general, the traffic generated by the proposed project would be expected to be about half of what is currently generated by the service station it would replace.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

5.2 Project Trip Distribution

The trip distribution assumptions have been based on the existing traffic count data including daily directional volume and peak-hour turning movements, the Alameda County travel demand model, and knowledge of the surrounding area such as commute patterns and the overall land use patterns in the area. Figure 5 shows the project traffic that would be added at the project study intersections.

5.3 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Conditions

This scenario evaluates the existing conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. A comparison of the capacity calculations for the conditions with the addition of traffic from the project is shown in Table 5. The corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the Traffic Analysis Appendix. As shown in Table 5, all of the study intersections would continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Please note that the results of the detailed queuing calculations have been included in the technical appendix to verify there would be no queuing problems expected with addition of traffic from the proposed project.

TABLE 5

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

EXISTING EXISTING PLUS

PROJECT
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 SHATTUCK AVENUE AT ASHBY AVENUE Signalized AM 13.3 B 13.8 B PM 13.8 B 14.0 B
2 SHATTUCK AVENUE AT THE PROJECT ENTRANCE Side Street Stop AM N/A N/A 16.6 C PM N/A N/A 17.8 C
3 SHATTUCK AVENUE AT EMERSON STREET Side Street Stop AM 15.4 B 15.6 C PM 23.3 C 23.3 C

SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2015
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle.

5.4 Baseline Intersection Capacity Conditions

Trip generation and trip assignment assumptions for the approved projects were based on the traffic study reports prepared for each project, where available. Approved projects include developments that are either under construction, built but not fully occupied, or not built but have final development approval from the City. Trips from approved developments that could significantly affect the volumes at the project study intersections were added to the existing intersection turning movement counts.

Approved projects in the area include the Parker Place project at Shattuck Avenue and Parker Street (which is planned to include 155 residential units and 22,905 square feet of ground-floor commercial space), 3132 Martin Luther King Jr. Way Mixed Use Project, 2489 Martin Luther King Jr. Way Mixed Use Project, 2201 Dwight Way Residential Project, 2024 Durant Street Student Housing Project, 2701 Shattuck Avenue Mixed Use Project, and the 2598/2600 Shattuck Avenue Mixed Use Project. The total background traffic growth to existing traffic was forecast to be 5% per year for two years based on the assumption that the project completion

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

ASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVE

ADELINE STREET

EMERSON
ST
REET
ESSE
X S
TREET
PR
IN
CE
STR
EET

TREMONT STREET

RUSSELL
STREET

WHEELER STREET

FULTON STREET

OTIS STREET

LORINA STREETPROJECT

LOCATION
Chevron
Gas
Enterprise
Rent-A-Car
1 2
3 3000 Shattuck Avenue

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Berkeley
FIGURE 5 PROJECT AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRIPS Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
1 ASHBY AVEASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
4 (6)
5 (3)
6 (4)
6 (3)
4 (7)
4 (7)
2 SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
4 (9)8 (5)
17 (10)
12 (20)

PROJECT ENTRANCEPROJECT ENTRANCE
3 EMERSON STEMERSON ST

SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
0 (1)
1 (1)
3 (6)
1 (2)
5 (3)
2 (1)
N
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

date would be 2017. Figure 6 presents the resulting baseline volumes at each of the project study intersections Table 5 summarizes the associated LOS computation results for the Baseline and Baseline Plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the Traffic Analysis Appendix.

As shown in Table 5, with the addition of traffic from the proposed project the project study intersection would continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better).

5.5 Baseline Plus Project Intersection Capacity Conditions

The Baseline plus proposed project traffic forecasts were developed by adding project-related traffic to the baseline traffic volumes. Table 6 summarizes the LOS results for the Baseline Plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions (i.e. the existing roadway network). Figure 7 presents the resulting baseline plus project volumes at each of the project study intersections.

Please note that the corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the appendix. As shown in Table 6, all of the study intersections would continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak. Again, please note that the results of the detailed queuing calculations have been included in the technical appendix to verify there would be no queuing problems with the addition of project traffic.

TABLE 6

BASELINE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

BASELINE BASELINE PLUS

PROJECT
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 SHATTUCK AVENUE AT ASHBY AVENUE Signalized AM 15.6 B 16.2 B PM 16.3 B 16.9 B
2 SHATTUCK AVENUE AT THE PROJECT ENTRANCE Side Street Stop AM N/A N/A 18.2 C PM N/A N/A 19.8 C
3 SHATTUCK AVENUE AT EMERSON STREET Side Street Stop AM 17.1 C 17.3 C PM 28.2 D 28.2 D

SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2015
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of seconds per vehicle.

5.6 Internal Circulation and Access

No site circulation or access issues have been identified that would cause any traffic safety issues or any unusual traffic congestion or delay. It should be noted that during peak periods there would be occasions where the northbound traffic queue from the Ashby Avenue traffic signal could extend back beyond the proposed driveway entrance. However, based on the LOS analysis the potential for queues near the project driveway is not expected to prevent safe access to the site. Please note that bicycle racks cannot be located at tree wells. Parking stalls will be a minimum of 8’ wide and 8.5’ wide at the end stalls, as per City requirements. It should also be noted that a clear 5’ by 5’ sight distance triangle must be provided at the garage exit point.

5.7 Parking

This section discusses the City of Berkeley’s zoning and estimated parking demand for the project. As per the City’s Municipal Code, the minimum off-street parking requirement for restaurants in this area equates to 1.0 spaces per every 300 square feet of gross floor area and for residential space it requires 1.0 spaces per every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. For this project this equates to a requirement of 43 spaces.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

ASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVE

ADELINE STREET

EMERSON
ST
REET
ESSE
X S
TREET
PR
IN
CE
STR
EET

TREMONT STREET

RUSSELL
STREET

WHEELER STREET

FULTON STREET

OTIS STREET

LORINA STREETPROJECT

LOCATION
Chevron
Gas
Enterprise
Rent-A-Car
1 2
3 3000 Shattuck Avenue

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Berkeley
FIGURE 6 BASELINE AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
1 ASHBY AVEASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
187 (130)
620 (518)
29 (28)
159 (196)
30 (39)
515 (538)
68 (67)
544 (639)
58 (86)
22 (34)
504 (542)
43 (36)

SHATTUCK AVE

PROJECT ENTRANCE

SHATTUCK AVE

PROJECT ENTRANCE
2 FUTURE INTERSECTIONFUTURE INTERSECTION
3 EMERSON STEMERSON ST

SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
13 (10)
1 (2)
8 (7)
7 (17)
7 (12)
502 (647)
13 (14)
2 (2)
20 (19)
9 (4)
375 (580)
18 (20)
N
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

ASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVE

ADELINE STREET

EMERSON
ST
REET
ESSE
X S
TREET
PR
IN
CE
STR
EET

TREMONT STREET

RUSSELL
STREET

WHEELER STREET

FULTON STREET

OTIS STREET

LORINA STREETPROJECT

LOCATION
Chevron
Gas
Enterprise
Rent-A-Car
1 2
3 3000 Shattuck Avenue

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Berkeley
FIGURE 7 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
1 ASHBY AVEASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
187 (130)
620 (518)
33 (34)
159 (196)
35 (42)
521 (542)
74 (70)
544 (639)
62 (93)
22 (34)
508 (549)
43 (36)
2 SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
613 (644)
4 (9)8 (5)
17 (10)
591 (656)
12 (20)

PROJECT ENTRANCEPROJECT ENTRANCE
3 EMERSON STEMERSON ST

SHATTUCK AVESHATTUCK AVE
13 (11)
1 (2)
8 (7)
8 (18)
7 (12)
505 (653)
13 (14)
2 (2)
20 (19)
10 (6)
380 (583)
20 (21)
N
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Parking Demand in Berkeley - For this location near shopping and with excellent transit access (and located within a mile of a major university) the parking demand is less than the typical ITE rate in the Parking Generation Manual. This is based on many of the same characteristics that are discussed in the trip generation section. The availability of transit, the use of bicycles, and the attractiveness of walking in a mixed-use environment clearly results in reduced vehicle trip generation and an associated reduction in the need for parking.

Since Berkeley has numerous opportunities for public transportation and the apartment residents are not all expected to have personal vehicles, it is anticipated that a substantial portion of all travel will occur by walking, bicycling, and through the use of public transit. Please note the project is less than four blocks from the Ashby BART station which is less than a 5 minute walk. There are also bus stops two blocks from the site providing access to an all- nighter (Route 800).

Parking Demand Based on ITE Parking Generation Rates - To provide additional justification for the parking demand analysis, Table 8 provides a summary of the parking demand results using the average ITE peak parking demand rates for apartments and a high turnover, sit down restaurant from the 4
th Edition of the ITE Parking Generation Manual. As shown in Table 8, the parking demand generated by the project would be forecast to be approximately 75 parking spaces based on the ITE data. However, please note this estimate does not account for the project’s location in a walkable area with excellent transit access located less than four blocks from a BART station.

Table 8
Residential Off-Street Parking Calculations Using Parking Data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers

Land Use Size Parking Ratio Required
Spaces
Restaurant 4,015 sq. ft. 5.5 22
Apartments 44 units 1.2 53
Total Unadjusted Peak Parking Demand 75

Residential Parking Demand Based on U.S. Census Data - To provide additional information on the potential parking demand in the project area U.S. census data was also utilized based on Census Transportation Planning Products summary of data from the American Community Survey (2010). The U.S. census data indicated the parking demand for the census tract where the project was located averaged 0.85 automobiles per dwelling unit. Please note this was calculated for the category of residential properties with greater than five dwelling units. Based on the U.S. census data the residents of the proposed 44-unit apartment building would be forecast to generate a parking demand of approximately 37 vehicles.

Public Parking Surveys - In order to evaluate the local parking situation on-street parking occupancy surveys were conducted based on the standard traffic engineering guidelines for a study area specified by the City of Berkeley. This survey included a detailed inventory of all on- street and public off-street parking within two blocks of the project site. Please note all streets in the project study area are part of the residential parking permit program where all vehicles without permits are restricted to 2 hours between 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The study involved a block-by-block survey of the number and types of spaces, and the parking occupancy on a weekday afternoon and also a weekday evening. These surveys were taken for both metered and non-metered spaces. The occupancy of any potentially available public off-street parking in ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

the area were also inventoried. The results of the study are presented in Figure 8 which shows the study area and the particular streets in the area that have been studied. Figure 8 also shows the number of parking spaces on each block-face. There are currently about 695 on- street parking spaces located within about two blocks of the project site. The studies found that during the afternoon, there are about 582 spaces (84%) that are occupied, and about 113 spaces available. During the evening, there are about 474 occupied spaces, which is an occupancy rate of 68%, and about 221 available on-street spaces. The detailed results of the parking occupancy surveys are attached to this report.

Summary of Findings on Parking - Based on these studies, the residential parking provided could be up to 20 spaces short of the estimated demand using U.S. Census data. The project is proposing to provide 11 spaces for residents and 6 spaces for the restaurant. Based on the Berkeley Municipal Code the residential portion would require 30 spaces and the restaurant would require 13 spaces for a total of 43 spaces. Therefore, the overall parking shortfall would be 26 parking spaces. However, the City could still consider making the findings that the proposed 17 space parking garage is reasonable and appropriate for the proposed 44 residential units and 4,015 of restaurant space. The justification would be as follows:

1) The project is proposing to exceed the requirements for bicy cle parking by providing 48 bicycle parking spaces including secure parking for 36 bicycles for residents and parking for an additional 12 bicycles for the commercial space.

2) There are numerous shopping, employment, and education centers in the area.

3) There are numerous existing car sharing locations in the area. Please note that within 1/2 mile of the project site there are 6 City Carshare locations and 4 Zipcar locations.

4) There is extensive public transportation available in the pr oject area including a BART station four blocks away which is about a 5 minute walk. There are also bus stops adjacent to the site with access to two intercity routes (Routes 18 and 49) and an all- nighter (Route 800). In addition there are stops less than two blocks from the site that provide access to a transbay route (Route F).

5.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions

The proposed project would not generate a significant increase in pedestrian traffic in the area (in comparison to the existing volumes) given the size of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not significantly impact or change the design of any existing pedestrian facilities and should not create any new safety problems in the area. The proposed project would also not significantly impact any existing bicycle facilities, including the nearby bicycle boulevard on Russell Street. The project will add some pedestrians and bicyclists who will utilize sidewalks and bicycle facilities in the area. In relation to the existing conditions, the proposed project would not cause substantial changes to the pedestrian or bicycle traffic in the area and would not significantly impact or require changes to the design of any existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities. It should be noted that bicycle racks cannot be located at tree wells.

5.9 Transit

The proposed project would not interfere with any existing bus routes and would not remove or relocate any existing bus stops. The proposed Project also would not conflict with any transit plans or goals of the City of Berkeley. Based on the size of the project, it is not forecast to cause a degradation of the level of service (or a significant increase in delay) on any roadway segments currently being utilized by bus transit in the area and, as such, no significant impacts to transit are expected.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

ASHBY AVE

SHATTUCK AVE
ADEL

INE STREET

EMERSON
ST
REE
T
ESSE
X S
TR
EET
PR
INC
E ST
REET

TREMONT STREET

RUSSELL STREET

WHEELER STREET

FULTON STREET

OTIS STREET

LORINA STREET
14 14
16 30
8+1B
57 15+2Y
18 18
4+6G+1Y+1B
7+2G+1Y
14 10
11+1Y
20 511
8 15+2W
3+2G
25+2Y
5 19
4 9
27 8 10
8 7
8 20+18W
17 20
9 19
5+1B
16+1B
19 15
8 4
15+1B
20 7
25 21+2B17
10 Legend
Commercial LoadingY-
Short-TermG -
HandicappedB-
- Study Area
Passenger LoadingW-
3000 Shattuck Avenue

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Berkeley
FIGURE 8 ON-STREET PARKING SUPPLY Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

N
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

5.10 Summary of Transportation Issues and Potential Improvement Measures

TR-1 Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in an increase in traffic to and from the site and would require an appropriate construction management plan developed and approved by the City of Berkeley.

The increase in traffic as a result of demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project has been quantified assuming single phase construction period of 20 months.

Heavy Equipment

Heavy equipment transport to and from the site could cause traffic impacts in the vicinity of the project site during construction. However, each overweight/oversized load would be required to obtain all necessary permits, which would include conditions. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the project applicant would be required to submit a Traffic Control Plan.

The requirements within the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: truck drivers would be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and I-80, as determined by the City Traffic Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress would occur only at the main driveway to the project site and construction activities may require temporary traffic controls as determined by the City Engineer. Please note construction traffic will be directed to use Shattuck Avenue as the City has a goal of minimizing construction traffic on local streets. Specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles would be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction vehicle ingress and egress. Any debris and mud caused by trucks would be monitored daily and may require instituting a street cleaning program. In addition, several loads of heavy equipment being hauled to and from the site each month would be short-term and temporary.

Employees

The weekday work is expected to begin around 7:00 AM and end around 4:00 PM. The construction worker arrival peak would occur between 6:30 AM and 7:30 AM, and the departure peak would occur between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These peak hours are slightly before the citywide commute peaks. It should be noted that the number of trips generated during construction would not only be temporary, but would also be substantially less than the proposed project at buildout.

Based on past construction of similar projects, construction workers could require parking for up to 20 vehicles during the peak construction period. Additionally, deliveries, visits, and other activities may generate peak non-worker parking demand of 5 to 10 trucks and automobiles per day. Therefore, up to 30 vehicle parking spaces may be required during the peak construction period for the construction employees.

Furthermore the Traffic Control Plan requires construction employee parking be provided on the project site or other provisions will need to be made for off-site parking, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineering Department.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Construction Material Import

The project would also require the importation of construction material, including raw materials for the building pads, the buildings, the parking area, and landscaping. Based on past construction of similar projects, importing this material is estimated to require substantial amounts of truck traffic. Under the provisions of the Traffic Control Plan, if importation and exportation of material becomes a traffic nuisance, then the City Engineer may limit the hours the activities can take place.

Impacts of Construction on Pedestrians and Bicyclists

The project would most likely require temporary closures of sidewalks adjacent to the site for safety. This would require a detailed plan for detouring pedestrian traffic. This plan will need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Construction traffic would not be expected to cause significant impacts to bicyclists in the area. The project is not proposing to change the configuration of the existing access driveway during construction or for the proposed project.

The analysis of traffic operations at the driveway indicates there would be no significant changes to the traffic volumes, delay, or safety on Shattuck Avenue with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. It was also verified that during construction the traffic accessing the site would not be expected to exceed the volumes generated by the proposed project. In general, the pedestrian and bicycle operations in the area would not be expected to change significantly during construction beyond the addition of some truck traffic to the area.

Traffic Control Plan

The Traffic Control Plan would indicate how parking for construction workers would be provided during construction and ensure a safe flow of traffic in the project area during construction. This analysis assumed construction of the entire project in one phase to identify the potential worst-case traffic effects.

Each phase will be subject to a Traffic Control Plan and oversight by the City Engineer and construction traffic is not forecast to exceed the post construction traffic conditions created by the proposed project. As a result the potential construction traffic impacts have been adequately addressed through the project impact analysis. Therefore, the demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project or its individual phases would not be expected to lead to noticeable congestion in the vicinity of the site or the perception of decreased traffic safety resulting in a less-than- significant impact.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

TR-2 Impacts related to site access and circulation.

Based on a review of the proposed site plan it was determined that the internal garage circulation should function well and should not cause any safety or operational problems.

The project site design has been required to conform to City design standards and is not expected to create any significant impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists or traffic operations.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Therefore, impacts related to site access and circulation to the proposed project would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

TR-3 Impacts regarding emergency vehicle access on and surroun ding the proposed project site.

Sufficient emergency access is determined by factors such as number of access points, roadway width, and proximity to fire stations. The land use plan for the proposed project would be subject to approval of the fire department.

All lane widths adjacent to the project would meet the minimum width that can accommodate an emergency vehicle; therefore, the width of the roadways would be adequate. Therefore, the development of the proposed project is expected to have less- than-significant impacts regarding emergency vehicle access.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

TR-4 Impacts relating to the presence and availability of adeq uate parking.

The proposed project is expected to provide a sufficient amount of parking to accommodate employees and residents and to ensure consistency with the City requirements. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to create parking impacts on the surrounding areas, and impacts related to adequate parking would be less-than- significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

5.13 Mitigations and Improvement Measures

Based on this analysis there would be no significant transportation impacts according to established standards and no off-site traffic or transportation mitigations would be required.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Ashby Ave
Shattuck Ave
Adelin
e Stre
et
Em
er
son Str
ee
t
Esse
x Stre
et
Pr
inc
e Street
Tremont Street
Russell Street
Wheeler Street
Fulton Street
Otis street
Lorina Street
16 (14,11) 30 (25,11)
10 (10,8)
5 (5,4)7 (7,6)
15+2Y (14,10)
18 (16,12)
4+6G+1Y+1B (7,5)
18 (17,13)
19 (16,12)
19 (14,9)
16+1B (15,13)
20 (18,17)
25 (25,24)
21+2B (20,19)
9 (8,6) 8 (7,5) 10 (10,9)
14 (12,12)
7+2G+1Y (7,4)
11 + 2Y (11,10)
10 (7,4)
4 (4,4) 5+1B (5,5) 7 (5,5)
4 (4,4)9 (7,6)5 (5,4)
15+2W (13,12)
25+2Y (23,20)
3+2G (4,3)
17 (16,9)
20 (18,16)
15 (14,9)
15+1B (16,10)
17 (16,14)
8 (8,8)
19 (19,16)8 (8,7)
7 (5,4)
8 (5,5)
20 (18,15)
20+18W (19,17)
8 (8,7)
11 (11,10) 5 (4,4)
27 (26,23)
8+1B (7,6)
14 (14,12)
14 (14,11)
N
City of Berkeley
On-Street Parking Occupancy
August 2015 Prepared by: Abrams Associates
Legend
B - Handicapped
G - Short-Term
W - Passenger Loading
Y - Commercial Loading
8-13-2015
Total Supply: 695
Total Demand: 582
Net Vacant Spaces: 113
8-13-2015
Total Supply: 695
Total Demand: 474
Net Vacant Spaces: 221
ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 19, 2017

TO: File

FROM: Shannon Allen, Principal Planner

SUBJECT: AB 25 Consultation – Phone Conversation with Andrew Galvan

This morning I spoke with Andrew Galvan, The Ohlone Tribe Inc., regarding the projects list emailed to him by Planning Technician Niloufar Karimzadegan on May 3, 2017, as well as my follow-up email on May 9, 2017. He let me know that he is not interested in consultation under AB52 on any of the projects listed, except 600 Addison.

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

From: Allen, Shannon
To: "[email protected]"
Cc: Karimzadegan, Niloufar
Subject: RE: AB52 Project List 04-01-17 to 04-15-17 and 2016 catch up list Date: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 10:34:02 AM
Importance: High
Andy –

Three things:

1)
Please recall that you are going to review the project lists sent by the City, mark on the far right of the list if you would like consultation or not, then sign and send back, so that we all have a record of the communication AND can initiate consultation when requested.

2)
The City has several Initial Studies that we anticipate publishing soon for the following projects:
· 1740 San Pablo (4 story mixed-use)
· 192-28 San Pablo (4 story mixed-use)
· 2100 San Pablo (5 story mixed-use)
· 2720 San Pablo (5 story mixed-use)
· 1050 Parker/2621 Tenth (at San Pablo) (60,000 med office/R&D) · 1110 University (5 story mixed-use)
· 1498 University (5 story mixed-use)
· 1717 University (4 story mixed-use)
· 2556 Telegraph (7 story mixed-use)
· 3000 Shattuck (5 story mixed-use)

Please let us know ASAP if you would like consultation on any of these. Some of these are on the recent AB52 lists sent to you, but I believe a few of the applications were submitted and/or deem complete prior to Mach 2016.

3)
If Fatema Crane and/or LSA have not reached out to you yet regarding 600 Addison (Master Use Permit for approximately 475,000 sq ft R&D) they will be soon. Project information can be found here:

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/600_Addison.aspx I think they anticipate holding a Scoping Meeting(s) in late summer or early fall.

Hope this note finds you well.

Thank you,
Shannon

Shannon Allen, AICP
Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Division
Planning and Development Department
City of Berkeley
1947 Center Street, Second Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-7430

As a cost saving measure the City of Berkeley is closed the 2nd Friday of every month. Additional closures may occur. For the latest City Closures and Holidays please check the City of Berkeley Homepage at www.ci.berkeley.ca.us

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

From: Karimzadegan, Niloufar
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 5:38 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Cc: Allen, Shannon <[email protected]>
Subject: AB52 Project List 04-01-17 to 04-15-17 and 2016 catch up list

Dear Mr. Galvin,

Attached you can find two different project lists. The first one is the bi-monthly list for covering the period between 04/01/2017 to 04/15/2017. The second list serves as a catch up list dating back to March 2016 when you requested AB52 consultation from Shannon Allen. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Nilu Karimzadegan |
Land Use Planning
City of Berkeley | Planning and Development
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor, Berkeley, Ca 94704
Direct: 510.981.7419
[email protected]

ATTACHMENT 7
ZAB 05-11-2023

Administrative Record

This attachment is on file and available for review at
the City Clerk Department, or can be accessed from
the City Council Website. Copies of the attachment
are available upon request.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900

or from:

The City of Berkeley’s Website
http://www.berkeleyca.gov
Attachment 8-9

ATTACHMENT 10

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
ZAB APPEAL: 3000 SHATTUCK AVENUE, USE PERMIT #ZP2022-0046 The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2025 at 6:00 P.M. a public hearing will be conducted to consider appeals of a decision by the Zoning Adjustments Board to APPROVE Zoning Permit #ZP2022-0046 to demolish a gas station, and construct a 10-story (114 feet) mixed-use building utilizing a State Density Bonus request, with 166 dwellings, including 17 Very Low-Income units, and 1,000 square-feet of commercial space.

The hearing will be held on March 25, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

For further information, please contact Allison Riemer, Project Planner at (510) 981-7433 or email [email protected]
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of March 13, 2025. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to
[email protected] in order to ensure
delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e- mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information. __________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Mailed by: March 11, 2025
Noticed Pursuant to: Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.404.040(B), Public Hearing Notice NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny(Code Civ. Proc. 1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5) an appeal, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6,

ATTACHMENT 10
no lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny or approve a Zoning Adjustments Board decision may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Zoning Adjustments Board decision, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage
Product Panel of Experts Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/

ACTION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts Commission Submitted by: Kenneth Hecht, Chairperson, SSBPPE Commission Subject: Allocation of $2,294,774 Million Over 2 Years, FY 2026 and FY 2027, to Reduce Consumption and Health Impacts of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs).

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution allocating $2,294,774 from the General Fund in Fiscal Year 2026 (July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026) and Fiscal Year 2027 (July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027) that shall be invested in a grant program administered and coordinated by the Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services’ (HHCS) Public Health Division (HHCS/PHD) consistent with the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts (SSBPPE) Commission’s goals to reduce the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (SSB) in Berkeley and to address the health effects of SSB consumption.

The total of $2,294,774 million will be distributed in two installments of $1,147,387 for FY2026 and $1,147,387 for FY2027. In each of these years, the funds will be distributed as follows:
a. Direct the City Manager to award up to 42.5% of the allocated funds to Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) through a grant to implement and enhance the BUSD cooking and gardening programs which aid in reducing the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) amongst students. The BUSD funding process is separate from the RFP process for community-based organizations and shall be guided by the SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for the BUSD Funding Proposal (Attachment 2).
b. Direct the City Manager to award at least 42.5% of the allocated funds through an RFP process managed by HHCS/PHD for grants to community- based organizations consistent with the SSBPPE Commission’s goals to reduce the consumption of SSBs and to address the effects of SSB consumption. The RFP process for community-based organizations is separate from the BUSD funding process and shall be guided by the SSBPPE Commission’s Selection Criteria for Community Agency Grants (Attachment 3).
c. Direct the City Manager to utilize up to 15% of the allocated funds to support HHCS/PHD to coordinate and monitor the grant process, coordinate the

Allocation of $2,294,774 Million Over 2 Years, FY 2026 and FY 2027 ACTION CALENDAR to Reduce Consumption and Health Impacts of SSBs March 25, 2025

overall program evaluation, and produce an annual report that disseminates process and outcome data from the epidemiologist resulting from the SSBPPE Commission funding program as well as pay certain City of Berkeley Finance Department costs related to the sugary drink tax.

SUMMARY
In November 2014, Berkeley voters passed a measure to require the collection of a 1 cent per ounce tax on the distribution of sugary drinks in the City of Berkeley AND the convening of a Panel of Experts (the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Products Panel of Experts--SSBPPE) to recommend investments to reduce the consumption and health consequences of sugary drinks. Voters renewed this measure in November 2024.

The SSBPPE recommends that Berkeley City Council adopt a resolution allocating a total of $2,294,774 million from the General Fund ($1,147,387 for FY2026 and $1,147,387 for FY2027), to invest in grant programs that serve Berkeley residents most impacted by sugary drink consequences. The resolution should direct the City Manager to:

1. Award up to 42.5% of the allocated funds to BUSD through a grant proposal

2. Award at least 42.5% of the allocated funds through an RFP process managed by the HHCS/PHD for grants to community-based organizations

3. Utilize up to 15% of the allocated funds to support HHCS/PHD.

These two-year grants support comprehensive strategies to: a) reduce access to SSBs, b) improve access to water, c) limit marketing of SSBs to children, and d) implement education and awareness campaigns> These grant awards indicate the City of Berkeley’s commitment to reducing the consumption of SSBs and improving the health of Berkeley residents, particularly those most impacted by obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, and heart disease.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Measure D, passed in November of 2014, and renewed through the passage of Measure Z in November of 2024, created two provisions, namely: a) a 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary drinks distributed in Berkeley and b) creation of a Panel of Experts Commission. The collection of this tax commenced in May of 2015 and is being deposited into the City’s General Fund. The SSBPPE Commission’s recommendation to Council for allocation of $2.3 million for FY2026 and FY2027 is independent of the amount of tax collected from the distribution of SSB in Berkeley. his request will create a liability of $2.3 million for the City’s General Fund in FY2026 and FY2027.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On November 21, 2024, the SSBPPE Commission approved the recommendation to the Berkeley City Council for allocation of $2,294,774 million for the period FY2026

Allocation of $2,294,774 Million Over 2 Years, FY 2026 and FY 2027 ACTION CALENDAR to Reduce Consumption and Health Impacts of SSBs March 25, 2025

and FY2027, to be made available to invest in grants programs to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and address the health consequences of the consumption of sugary drinks and moved to adopt their recommendation to Council as follows:

Key elements of the resolution include:
1) Direct the City Manager to award up to 42.5% of the allocated funds to BUSD through a grant proposal to reduce the consumption of SSBs. 2) Direct the City Manager to award at least 42.5% of the allocated funds through an RFP process managed by the HHCS/PHD for grants to community-based organizations consistent with the SSBPPE Commission’s goals.
3) Direct the City Manager to utilize up to 15% of the allocated funds to support HHCS/PHD to:
a. Coordinate and monitor the grant process,
b. coordinate the overall program evaluation, and
c. produce an annual report that disseminates process and outcome data from the epidemiologist resulting from the SSBPPE
Commission funding program as well as,
d. pay certain City of Berkeley Finance Department costs related to the sugary drink tax.

Action: M/S/C (Morales/ Mashama) to update the SSBPPE Commission City Council recommendation from October 20th, 2022: 1) dates, 2) background as needed, 3) recommendations, and 4) recommending the City Manager utilize up to 15% of the allocated funds to support the COB Public Health Division and Finance Department fees related to the Sugar- Sweetened Beverage Soda Tax.

Votes: Ayes – Morales, Rodriguez, Mashama, Lopez, Crawford, Esonwune, Hecht; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Kao, Chan.

BACKGROUND
In November of 2014, the Berkeley voters passed Measure D, which requires both the collection of a 1 cent per ounce tax on the distribution of sugary drinks in the City of Berkeley AND the convening of a Panel of Experts (the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Products Panel of Experts--SSBPPE) to recommend investments to both reduce the consumption of sugary drinks as well as to address the health consequences of the consumption of sugary drinks. Voters have since renewed this measure, through the passage of Measure Z in November of 2024.

Our nation, our state, and our community face a major public health crisis. Diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay have been on the rise for decades. Although no group has escaped these epidemics, children, as well as low-income communities and communities of color have been and continue to be disproportionately affected. While

Allocation of $2,294,774 Million Over 2 Years, FY 2026 and FY 2027 ACTION CALENDAR to Reduce Consumption and Health Impacts of SSBs March 25, 2025

there is no single cause for the rise in diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay, there is overwhelming evidence of the link between the consumption of sugary drinks and the incidence of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and tooth decay.

Sugary drinks such as soft drinks, energy drinks, sweetened teas, and sport drinks offer little or no nutritional value, but contribute massive quantities of added sugar. A single 20-ounce bottle of soda, for instance, typically contains the equivalent of approximately 16 teaspoons of sugar. Before the 1950s, the standard soft-drink bottle was 6.5 ounces.

In the 1950s, larger size containers were introduced, including the 12-ounce can, which became widely available in 1960. By the early 1990s, 20-ounce plastic bottles had become the norm. At the same time, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an ongoing massive marketing campaign, which particularly targets children and people of color. In 2006 alone, nearly $600 million was spent in advertising to children under

18. African American and Latinx children are also aggressively targeted with advertisements to promote sugar-laden drinks.

The resulting impact on consumption should not be surprising. The average American now drinks nearly 40 gallons of sugary drinks a year. In the past 20 years, the prevalence of obesity in adults increased from 30.5% to 42.4%, and the prevalence of severe obesity increased from 4.7% to 9.2%. During this time, the prevalence of obesity among youth (aged 2–19 years) increased from 13.9% to 19.3%, and the prevalence of severe obesity increased from 3.6% to 6.1%. The problem is especially acute with children in California. From 1989 to 2008, the percentage of children consuming sugary drinks increased from 79% to 91% and the percentage of total calories obtained from sugary drinks increased by 60% in children ages 6 to 11. This level of consumption has had tragic impacts on community health. Type 2 Diabetes –previously only seen among adults –is now increasing among children. If the current obesity trends are not reversed, it is predicted that one in three children and nearly one-half of Latinx and African American children born in the year 2000 will develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetimes.

Our community has not been immune to the challenge of unhealthy weight gain and obesity. According to the 2018 City of Berkeley Health Status Report, over a quarter of Berkeley’s 5th and 7th grade students (all race/ethnicities) are overweight or obese.

Berkeley has a lower proportion of 5th and 7th grade children who are overweight or obese (29.4%) compared to children in Alameda County (35.3%) but has a higher proportion compared to California (26.8%). However, a higher proportion of African- American children are overweight or obese in Berkeley compared to Alameda County or California.

Tooth decay has meaningful impact on health, especially for children. In fact, tooth decay is the most common childhood disease, experienced by over 70% of California’s 3rd graders. Children who frequently or excessively consume beverages high in sugar are at increased risk for dental cavities. Dental problems are a major cause of missed

Allocation of $2,294,774 Million Over 2 Years, FY 2026 and FY 2027 ACTION CALENDAR to Reduce Consumption and Health Impacts of SSBs March 25, 2025

school days and poor school performance as well as pain, infection, and tooth loss in California.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
When sugary drink consumption decreases due to the direct investments in programs and activities, the SSBPPE Commission expects that there will be a reduction to the City’s waste stream.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This two-year grant period supports comprehensive strategies to: a) reduce access to SSBs, b) improve access to water, c) limit marketing of SSBs to children, and d) implement education and awareness campaigns with specific populations. The two- year grant period will also indicate the City of Berkeley’s commitment to reducing the consumption of SSBs and improving the health of Berkeley residents, particularly those most impacted by obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, and heart disease. The funding will allow grantees to develop interventions that include education, policy, systems and environmental changes with measurable outcome data and evaluation to show the rise in public awareness about the harmful impacts of SSBs, reduce consumption of SSBs over time, and decrease the health risks among residents of Berkeley.

To have the greatest impact, the SSBPPE Commission recommends that the following populations be prioritized:
a. Children and their families with a particular emphasis on young children who are in the process of forming lifelong habits,
b. Children and young adults living in households with limited resources, c. Groups exhibiting higher than average population levels of type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and tooth decay rates,
d. Groups that are disproportionately targeted by the beverage industry marketing, e. Pregnant women,
f. Berkeley-based organizations that serve any or all of the above populations.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Commission did not identify an alternative action which is consistent with the City’s

CITY MANAGER
See City Manager’s companion report.

CONTACT PERSON
Roberto Terrones, MPH, Commission Secretary, HHCS, (510) 510-981-5324 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for BUSD Funding Proposal 3: SSBPPE Commission’s Selection Criteria for Community Agency Funding

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

ALLOCATION: $2,294,774 MILLION TOTAL FOR SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION AND REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM IN FY2026 AND FY2027 WHEREAS, the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (“SSB”) in Berkeley is impacting the health of the people in Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, in FY2024 and FY2025, the City Council awarded a total of $2 million upon the recommendation of the SSBPPE Commission to demonstrate the City’s long-term commitment to decreasing the consumption of SSB and mitigate the harmful impacts of SSB on the population of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, many studies demonstrate that high intake of SSB is associated with risk of Type 2 Diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, and coronary heart disease; and WHEREAS, the above conditions are all demonstrated to increase both the severity of COVID19 related illness and risk of death; and
WHEREAS Latinx and Black communities are disproportionately affected by COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an ongoing massive marketing campaign, which particularly targets children and people of color; and WHEREAS, an African American resident of Berkeley is 14 times more likely than a White resident to be hospitalized for diabetes; and
WHEREAS, 40% of 9th graders in Berkeley High School are either overweight or obese; and
WHEREAS, tooth decay is the most common childhood disease, experienced by over 70% of California’s 3rd graders; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, a U.S. national research team estimated levying a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages would prevent nearly 100,000 cases of heart disease, 8,000 strokes, and 26,000 deaths over the next decade and 240,000 cases of diabetes per year nationwide.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is hereby authorized to allocate $2,294,774 million from the General Fund to be disbursed in two (2) installments of $1,147,387 for FY26 and $1,147,387 for FY27 and invested as follows:

Allocate up to 42.5% of the allocated funds to Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) through a grant proposal to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages

(SSBs) through the implementation and enhancement of the BUSD cooking and gardening programs for the period, July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2027; and Allocate at least 42.5% of the allocated funds through a RFP process managed by the Public Health Division for grants to community-based organizations consistent with the SSBPPE Commission’s goals to reduce the consumption of SSB and to address the effects of SSB consumption for the period, July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2027; and Allocate up to 15% of the allocated funds to support the Berkeley Public Health Division (BPHD) to coordinate and monitor the grant process, coordinate the overall program evaluation, and produce an annual report that disseminates process and outcome data resulting from the SSBPPE Commission funding program as well as City of Berkeley Finance Department fees related to the sugary drink tax.

A records signature copy of the said agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Attachment 2
SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for the BUSD Funding Proposal Required components for BUSD proposal:

List specific activities for how the BUSD proposed project will meet the following:
1) Decrease access to SSBs and/or improve access to drinking water. 2) Increase or strengthen SSB policies in school and outside of school. 3) Support the annual administration of the Berkeley adapted Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) or California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) to evaluate student’s SSB knowledge, consumption, access, and policy perceptions. 4) Increase and strengthen the garden program through nutrition education curriculum, the ways the curriculum addresses SSB consumption, and communication of SSB education and policy efforts to parents 5) If there is a plan to work with partners, who are they and how do you anticipate they will collaborate with BUSD staff? Identify which grade levels will be associated with each partnership.

Anticipated obstacles: What obstacles do you anticipate how will you try to address them? Project Measures: Describe the ways in which you will measure outcomes, including the way you will administer the YRBS or CHKS survey and for which students, measures for the garden and cooking program, and other measures to understand if your program is working.

Sustainability Plan: Please describe how your organization will sustain the proposed project/ program activities beyond the funding period.

Communications Plan: Describe how you will meet communication requirements.

Include what type of communication product(s) will be produced and what information will be shared.

Agreement to participate in the three meetings per year (1-2 sentence statement of agreement): Grantees are expected to do a presentation at one commission meeting, host one site visit for commissioners, and will attend one resource sharing meeting with other grantees.

Additional Requirements for BUSD:

Please confirm with a yes to each of the following requirements:
1) Proposal reflects approval from the BUSD School Board: Yes/No 2) BUSD will not sell or serve sugar-sweetened beverages (as defined by the SSB tax) at any BUSD schools or campuses: Yes/No
3) Awarded funding will not supplant BUSD FY26 and FY27 General Fund allocations: Yes/No
4) Funded projects will publicly reflect support from Healthy Berkeley Program:

Yes/No
5) Funded projects and programs will include evaluation of their process and outcomes: Yes/No

Attachment 3
SSBPPE Commission’s Selection Criteria for Community Agency Funding Required components of project proposals from community-based organizations:

Proposed Project and Activities:
1) Briefly describe the goal of the program or project you would like to see funded.
2) Identify which strategies you intend to use in your program. 3) Identify the kinds of activities you will use in your program. 4) How many people do you expect to reach with your project? 5) Do you plan to work with partners? If so, who are they? Applicants who have previously received funding should describe how they will build on past accomplishments, reach new participants, and whether there is deeper engagement with the same community members in new ways that reinforce and build upon previous funding.

Anticipated obstacles: What obstacles do you anticipate and how will you try to address them? Project Measures: Describe all the things that you will measure to know if your program is working.

Sustainability Plan: Please describe how your organization will sustain the proposed project/program activities beyond the funding period.

Communications Plan: Include what type of communication product(s) will be produced and what information will be shared.

Agreement to participate in the three meetings per year (1-2 sentence statement of agreement): Grantees are expected to do a presentation at one commission meeting, host one site visit for commissioners, and will attend one resource sharing meeting with other grantees. (See Section II.D. above.)
Scoring criteria:

1. The proposed project aims to decrease consumption of sugary drinks, increase access to drinking water, and/or address health effects from consumption of sugary drinks. (25%)

2. The proposed project indicates how people and communities in the priority populations will be reached. (20%)

3. Describes both strategies and activities that will be used to reach their goals (30%)

4. The proposal includes a plan for sustaining their efforts and communicating activities, and successes to the larger Berkeley community. (15%)

5. Proposal budget matches the work plan and is appropriate. (10%)

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 25, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director of Finance
Scott Gilman, Director of Health, Housing and Community Services Subject: Companion Report: Allocation of $2,294,774 Million Over Two Years, FY2026 and FY2027, to Reduce Consumption and Health Impacts of Sugar- Sweetened Beverages (SSBs).

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution allocating $2,294,774 from the General Fund total for Fiscal Year 2026 (July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026) and Fiscal Year 2027 (July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027) to be invested in a grant program administered and coordinated by the Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services’ (HHCS) Public Health Division (HHCS/PHD). This program will align with the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts (SSBPPE) Commission’s goals to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption in Berkeley and address the health effects of SSB consumption. The total amount will be distributed in two installments of $1,147,387 annually for FY2026 and FY2027, as follows:

A. Award up to $905,292 of the allocated amount to the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) for the period of July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2027, through a grant proposal process. These funds will support the reduction of SSB consumption through the implementation and enhancement of BUSD cooking and gardening programs. The BUSD funding process will be separate from the general community-based organization funding process and guided by the SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for BUSD Funding (Attachment 2).

B. Award up to $905,292 of the allocated amount for the period of July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2027, through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process managed by HHCS/PHD. These grants will be awarded to community-based organizations (CBOs) and will align with the SSBPPE Commission’s goals to reduce SSB consumption and address the effects of SSB consumption. The RFP process to determine CBO funding will be separate from the BUSD funding process and guided by the SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for Community Agency Grants (Attachment 3).

Companion Report: Approve Funding Recommendation for Programs CONSENT CALENDAR to Reduce Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) March 25, 2025

C. For the period of July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2027, allocate $128,990 to the Finance Department for staffing costs and Muni-Services fees, and $355,200 to HHCS/PHD for staffing, operating, service delivery and consulting costs. HHCS/PHD will coordinate and monitor the grant process, manage awarded contracts, and provide activities aligned with the sugary beverage tax goals including providing education, outreach, and technical assistance to support local vendors as they work to comply with the Healthy Checkout ordinance and monitoring Berkeley funded hydration stations, and HHCS will provide an annual presentation to the SSBPPE Commission focused on process and outcome data and updates on Finance Department fees related to the sugary drink tax, to inform the Commission’s annual report.

D. Carry over any sugary drink tax revenue received in excess of $2,294,774 during FY2026 and FY2027 to be awarded for related services in FY2027–FY2029.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Based on recent trends in sugar-sweetened beverage tax revenue (detailed below), projections for FY2026 and FY2027 indicate approximately $1,147,387 in revenue per year. These projections will be revised after the mid-year revenue numbers are analyzed.

The requested amounts for the Finance Department and HHCS/PHD are based on current needs to maintain consistent service levels supporting BUSD, awarded CBO contracts, external consultants, the SSBPPE Commission, and related activities.

Current staffing and FTEs remain the same, with the exception of personnel pay rate and Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) increases due to newly negotiated employee contracts. Funding is subject to appropriation in FY2026 and FY2027.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In November 2014, Berkeley voters passed Measure D, which mandates a 1 cent per ounce tax on the distribution of sugary drinks in Berkeley and the convening of a Panel of Experts (SSBPPE) to recommend investments to reduce sugary drink consumption and address the health consequences of such consumption. In November 2024, Berkeley voters passed Measure Z, removing the January 1, 2027, expiration date and extending the tax until repealed or modified by voters.

The City of Berkeley has enjoyed a successful partnership with the SSBPPE and funded CBOs for over ten years and fully supports the purpose and intent of Measures D and Z. As revenues decrease due to the success of the tax, it is essential to continue strategies that promote healthier behaviors and decrease SSB consumption.

Community-based partnerships have positively impacted health education and policy, systems, and environmental changes that support the SSBPPE’s goals and mission.

City staff are committed to providing administrative support and programmatic activities

Companion Report: Approve Funding Recommendation for Programs CONSENT CALENDAR to Reduce Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) March 25, 2025

that enhance the City’s community-based partners' successful implementation of strategies for improved community health.

The associated annual costs for the Finance Department’s administration of the tax and HHCS/PHD’s coordination and management of the RFP process, resulting contracts, and related policies (such as the Healthy Checkout Ordinance) are outlined below.

HHCS will also conduct a time study to ensure appropriate allocation of funding needed to meet the SSBPPE administrative expectations. In FY 24/25 the percent allocation was 28%. Under this proposal the administrative percent drops to 21% for FY 25/26.

Projected Annual Costs for Mandated Activities (Finance and HHCS) Amount Finance Department Staff (.30 FTE) $41,547
Muni Services Fees (@ 2%) $22,948
Finance Department Subtotal $64,495
HHCS: Administrative Staff (estimated salary including benefits) $93,954 HHCS: Nutritionist @ 20% (estimated salary including benefits) $42,774 HHCS: Contracted Program Evaluation Consulting Services $19,000 HHCS: Other Operational Expenses $21,872
HHCS Costs Subtotal $177,600
Total Annual SSB Tax utilized for administrative expenses

$242,095

BACKGROUND
Measure D, the Sugar Sweetened Beverage tax, was passed on July 1, 2014, to support increased water consumption and decreased SSB consumption. Allocations from the City General Fund supported HHCS/PHD in developing and overseeing SSBPPE community agency contracts, providing SSBPPE secretarial support, conducting program evaluations, and supporting programmatic initiatives aligned with Measure D. The tax was extended by voters through Measure Z in November 2024, removing the January 1, 2027, expiration date.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no environmental impacts.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This recommendation allows the City to continue its commitment to public health, specifically reducing SSB consumption in Berkeley, while aligning program investment with projected funding. Modifying the City’s scope of work and calculating funding for City services based on actual costs, rather than an assumed percentage of tax revenue, will allow for program implementation and sustainability.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED

Companion Report: Approve Funding Recommendation for Programs CONSENT CALENDAR to Reduce Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) March 25, 2025

Staff appreciates the SSBPPE’s commitment to BUSD programming and the important work of CBOs. Staff did not identify an alternative recommendation consistent with projected sugary beverage tax revenue and current City costs.

CONTACT PERSONS
Henry Oyekanmi, Director of Finance (510) 981-7200
Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services (510) 981-5400 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for BUSD Funding
3: SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for Community Agency Funding

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

ALLOCATION: $2,294,774 TOTAL FOR SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION AND REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM IN FY2026 AND FY2027 WHEREAS, the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (“SSB”) in Berkeley is impacting the health of the people in Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, in FY2024 and FY2025, the City Council awarded a total of $2 Million by Resolution #70,765,-NS upon the recommendation of the SSBPPE Commission to demonstrate the City’s long-term commitment to decreasing the consumption of SSB and mitigate the harmful impacts of SSB on the population of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, many studies demonstrate that high intake of SSB is associated with risk of Type 2 Diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, and coronary heart disease; and WHEREAS, the above conditions are all demonstrated to increase both the severity of COVID19 related illness and risk of death; and
WHEREAS, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an ongoing massive marketing campaign, which particularly targets children and people of color; and WHEREAS, an African American resident of Berkeley is 14 times more likely than a White resident to be hospitalized for diabetes; and
WHEREAS, 40% of 9th graders in Berkeley High School are either overweight or obese; and
WHEREAS, tooth decay is the most common childhood disease, experienced by over 70% of California’s 3rd graders; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, a U.S. national research team estimated levying a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages would prevent nearly 100,000 cases of heart disease, 8,000 strokes, and 26,000 deaths over the next decade and 240,000 cases of diabetes per year nationwide.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is hereby authorized to allocate $2,294,774 million from the General Fund to be disbursed in two (2) installments of $1,147,387 million in FY26 and $1,147,387 million in FY27 and invested as follows:

1. For the period, July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2027, direct the City Manager to allocate $128,990 to the Finance Department for staffing costs and Muni-Services fees and $355,200 to HHCS/PHD for staffing, operating and consulting costs. HHCS/PHD will coordinate and monitor the grant process, manage resulting contracts

awarded, support activities aligned with the goal of the sugary beverage tax, including the Healthy Retail Checkout ordinance, and provide an annual presentation to the SSBPPE Commission that includes process and outcome data and updates on Finance Department fees related to the sugary drink tax for the SSBPPE Commission to inform the development of the Commission’s annual report.

2. Allocate up to $905,292 of remaining funds to Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) through a grant proposal to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) through the implementation and enhancement of the BUSD cooking and gardening programs for the period, July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2027; and

3. Allocate up to $905,292 of funds through a RFP process managed by the Public Health Division for grants to community-based organizations consistent with the SSBPPE Commission’s goals to reduce the consumption of SSB and to address the effects of SSB consumption for the period, July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2027; and

4. Carryover any sugary drink tax revenue received in excess of $2,294,774 million during FY2026 and FY2027 to be awarded for related services in FY2027 – FY2029.

A records signature copy of the said agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Attachment 2
SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for the BUSD Funding Proposal Required components for BUSD proposal:

List specific activities for how the BUSD proposed project will meet the following:
1) Decrease access to SSBs and/or improve access to drinking water. 2) Increase or strengthen SSB policies in school and outside of school. 3) Support the annual administration of the Berkeley adapted Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) or California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) to evaluate student’s SSB knowledge, consumption, access, and policy perceptions. 4) Increase and strengthen the garden program through nutrition education curriculum, the ways the curriculum addresses SSB consumption, and communication of SSB education and policy efforts to parents 5) If there is a plan to work with partners, who are they and how do you anticipate they will collaborate with BUSD staff? Identify which grade levels will be associated with each partnership.

Anticipated obstacles: What obstacles do you anticipate how will you try to address them? Project Measures: Describe the ways in which you will measure outcomes, including the way you will administer the YRBS or CHKS survey and for which students, measures for the garden and cooking program, and other measures to understand if your program is working.

Sustainability Plan: Please describe how your organization will sustain the proposed project/ program activities beyond the funding period.

Communications Plan: Describe how you will meet communication requirements.

Include what type of communication product(s) will be produced and what information will be shared.

Agreement to participate in the three meetings per year (1-2 sentence statement of agreement): Grantees are expected to do a presentation at one commission meeting, host one site visit for commissioners, and will attend one resource sharing meeting with other grantees.

Additional Requirements for BUSD:

Please confirm with a yes to each of the following requirements:
1) Proposal reflects approval from the BUSD School Board: Yes/No 2) BUSD will not sell or serve sugar-sweetened beverages (as defined by the SSB tax) at any BUSD schools or campuses: Yes/No
3) Awarded funding will not supplant BUSD FY26 and FY27 General Fund allocations: Yes/No
4) Funded projects will publicly reflect support from Healthy Berkeley Program:

Yes/No
Funded projects and programs will include evaluation of their process and outcomes:

Yes/No

Attachment 3
SSBPPE Commission’s Selection Criteria for Community Agency Funding Required components of project proposals from community-based organizations:

Proposed Project and Activities:
1) Briefly describe the goal of the program or project you would like to see funded.
2) Identify which strategies you intend to use in your program. 3) Identify the kinds of activities you will use in your program. 4) How many people do you expect to reach with your project? 5) Do you plan to work with partners? If so, who are they? Applicants who have previously received funding should describe how they will build on past accomplishments, reach new participants, and whether there is deeper engagement with the same community members in new ways that reinforce and build upon previous funding.

Anticipated obstacles: What obstacles do you anticipate and how will you try to address them? Project Measures: Describe all the things that you will measure to know if your program is working.

Sustainability Plan: Please describe how your organization will sustain the proposed project/program activities beyond the funding period.

Communications Plan: Include what type of communication product(s) will be produced and what information will be shared.

Agreement to participate in the three meetings per year (1-2 sentence statement of agreement): Grantees are expected to do a presentation at one commission meeting, host one site visit for commissioners, and will attend one resource sharing meeting with other grantees. (See Section II.D. above.)
Scoring criteria:

1. The proposed project aims to decrease consumption of sugary drinks, increase access to drinking water, and/or address health effects from consumption of sugary drinks. (25%)

2. The proposed project indicates how people and communities in the priority populations will be reached. (20%)

3. Describes both strategies and activities that will be used to reach their goals (30%)

4. The proposal includes a plan for sustaining their efforts and communicating activities, and successes to the larger Berkeley community. (15%)

5. Proposal budget matches the work plan and is appropriate. (10%)

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager
Henry Oyekanmi, Finance Director
Subject: Fiscal Year 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the Fiscal Year 2025 (“FY 2025”) Mid-Year Budget Update including actual General Fund and Special Fund expenditures incurred from July 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024.

It also provides an estimate of anticipated General Fund revenues and expenditures by June 30, 2025 and projected expenditures for All Funds by department for FY 2025.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley is currently in FY 2025, which covers the period of July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025. On June 25, 2024 the City Council adopted the FY 2025 Budget, authorizing gross appropriations of $793.32 million. The General Fund portion of this appropriation is $285.55 million. On December 3, 2024, Council authorized the use of fund balance (for the General Fund) and a combination of increased revenue and fund balance for other citywide funds to support encumbered rollovers for contractual obligations entered in FY 2024 that had not been paid as of June 30, 2024; carryover of funding for specific projects that had not been completed before the fiscal year-end and new funding requests as part of the first amendment to the Annual Appropriations Ordinance (AAO1). This action increased the gross appropriations to $1.091 billion citywide, which included $333.65 million in the General Fund.

FY 2025 General Fund Mid-Year Summary
As of December 31, 2024, General Fund revenues are $128.15 million, or 46.87% of the Adopted Budget. Revenues received are less than 50% with half of the fiscal year elapsed, although the timing of the receipt of revenues varies through the course of the fiscal year.

Revenues for FY 2025 are expected to meet what has been budgeted ($273.40 million).

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

General Fund expenses are at 40.27% of what has been budgeted, compared to the projected 50%, halfway through the fiscal year. Based on the mid-year trend, expenditures are projected to be approximately $2.24 million less what has been budgeted.

As part of AAO1, Council authorized the use of $48.10 million in fund balance to support increased expenditures. A portion of the fund balance was allocated to reserves, leaving an unassigned fund balance of $4.03 million. The FY 2025 year-end projection reflects the impact of the approved labor agreements on the personnel budget. In addition, the projection assumes: (1) all authorized expenditures are spent by June 30, 2025; (2) public safety overtime continues at the projected level and (3) revenues remain unchanged. Based on these factors, the General Fund is likely to use $2.24 million less in fund balance than projected. The resulting unassigned fund balance, or the amount available before needed to use reserves, is therefore likely to be approximately $6.27 million. General Fund reserves are anticipated to be at $58.36 million, or 21.3% of adopted revenues, on June 30, 2025.

General Fund Revenues
The City received a variety of revenues, which largely consist of taxes, that may be used at the discretion of the City Council to fund programs, projects and services. A comparison of the General Fund revenues received to date to last fiscal year is provided below.

General Fund Revenue and Transfer In FY 2025 Mid-Year vs FY 2024 Mid-Year Comparison, below shows FY 2025 General Fund Revenues through the first six months of the current fiscal year and compares the year-to-date revenues received to the first six months of FY 2024. A detailed analysis of the comparison between the fiscal years for the major revenue sources is provided below.

Notes: (1) This statement is presented on a budgetary basis (i.e., cash). (2) Current vendor no longer breaks out Regular and Booting Parking Fines Collections Revenue Categories Adopted Actual Variance % Received Adopted Actual Variance %
Received Amount %
(a) (b) c=(b) - (a) ( d) = (b)/(a) (e) (f) g=(f) - (e) (h) = (f)/(g) (i) = (b) - (f) (j) = (i)/(f) Secured Property $89,887,496 $45,385,988 ($44,501,508) 50.49% $75,664,920 $42,904,620 ($32,760,300) 56.70% 2,481,368 5.78% Redemptions -Regular 1,018,153 567,891 (450,262) 55.78% 831,441 524,404 -307,037 63.07% 43,487 8.29% Supplemental Taxes 3,400,000 727,555 (2,672,445) 21.40% 2,000,000 1,197,265 -802,735 59.86% (469,710) -39.23% Unsecured Property Taxes 4,648,038 4,165,858 (482,180) 89.63% 3,516,000 3,881,280 365,280 110.39% 284,578 7.33% Property Transfer Tax 19,000,000 11,917,994 (7,082,006) 62.73% 34,462,172 10,056,934 -24,405,238 29.18% 1,861,060 18.51% Property Transfer Tax-Measure P (New December 21, 2018) 6,199,580 4,955,306 (1,244,274) 79.93% 14,073,750 2,840,259 -11,233,491 20.18% 2,115,047 74.47% Sales Taxes 18,884,235 9,364,937 (9,519,298) 49.59% 19,016,546 9,305,556 -9,710,990 48.93% 59,381 0.64% Soda Taxes 1,147,387 512,817 (634,570) 44.69% 990,210 581,705 -408,505 58.75% (68,888) -11.84% Utility Users Taxes 17,700,000 9,047,804 (8,652,196) 51.12% 13,800,000 7,801,328 -5,998,672 56.53% 1,246,476 15.98% Transient Occupancy Taxes 7,688,065 4,249,236 (3,438,829) 55.27% 5,000,000 4,393,772 -606,228 87.88% (144,536) -3.29% Less: TOT rebates owed (3) (665,260) (642,939) (22,321) 3.47% Short-term Rentals 1,400,000 661,730 (738,270) 47.27% 1,000,000 687,271 -312,729 68.73% (25,541) -3.72% Business License Tax 23,664,000 1,338,857 (22,325,143) 5.66% 19,000,000 1,592,902 -17,407,098 8.38% (254,045) -15.95% Recreational Cannabis 18,000 19,017 1,017 105.65% 1,400,000 76,512 -1,323,488 5.47% (57,495) -75.15% U1 Revenues 6,500,000 128,163 (6,371,837) 1.97% 4,900,000 181,607 -4,718,393 3.71% (53,444) -29.43% Other Taxes (excluding Redemptions-Regular) 4,434,906 1,951,624 (2,483,282) 44.01% 1,800,000 1,899,156 99,156 105.51% 52,468 2.76% Vehicle In-Lieu Taxes 18,851,257 9,500,999 (9,350,258) 50.40% 15,926,168 8,937,911 -6,988,257 56.12% 563,088 6.30% Parking Fines-Regular Collections 5,800,000 2,932,701 (2,867,299) 50.56% 4,326,450 3,253,087 -1,073,363 75.19% (320,386) -9.85% Parking Fines-Booting Collections 0 0 0.00% - 0.00%
Moving Violations 132,600 73,119 (59,481) 55.14% 132,600 96,254 -36,346 72.59% (23,135) -24.04% Ambulance Fees 7,734,813 3,768,540 (3,966,273) 48.72% 3,880,779 3,815,272 -65,507 98.31% (46,732) -1.22% Interest Income 13,500,000 8,207,451 (5,292,549) 60.80% 6,000,000 6,619,791 619,791 110.33% 1,587,660 23.98% Franchise Fees 1,822,528 268,424 (1,554,104) 14.73% 1,613,283 307,634 -1,305,649 19.07% (39,210) -12.75% Other Revenue 8,759,495 3,776,486 (4,983,009) 43.11% 6,729,977 3,018,612 -3,711,365 44.85% 757,874 25.11% IDC Reimbursement 7,031,624 3,200,593 (3,831,031) 45.52% 5,490,000 3,259,079 -2,230,921 59.36% (58,486) -1.79% Transfers 4,181,923 2,090,961 (2,090,962) 50.00% 17,096,148 4,045,962 -13,050,186 23.67% (1,955,001) -48.32% Total Revenue: $273,404,100 $128,148,791 -$145,255,309 46.87% $258,650,444 $120,635,234 -$138,015,210 46.64% $7,513,557 6.23% FY 2025 FY 2024 Comparision FY25 vs FY24