Berkeley City Council
April 29, 2025

the public comment period.

SECTION 4: FINDINGS
The Middle Housing Zoning amendments are consistent with and within the scope of the project analyzed in the Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report (“HEU EIR”). The “project description” for the HEU EIR states:

Middle Housing Rezoning R-1 R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts are anticipated to increase in density based on the State’s adoption of SB 9 and a proposed HEU program to facilitate increased development in lower density districts. The City would review and amend the Zoning Code and applicable objective development standards to encourage a mix of dwelling types and sizes, to promote housing for middle- and moderate-income households and increase the availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes to reduce displacement risk for residents living in overcrowded units or experiencing high housing cost burden. (Draft EIR at 2-10)
The HEU EIR examined the Middle Housing Zoning amendments at a sufficient level of detail to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site-specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.

The Middle Housing Zoning amendments are consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning of the city, county, or city and county in which the later project would be located.

No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the HEU EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect.

No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The HEU EIR was certified on November 30, 2022, less than three years ago. The City has also prepared an analysis evaluating the Middle Housing Zoning amendments’ consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 1).

No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the HEU EIR was certified as complete, has been presented showing any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The mitigation measures adopted for the HEU shall also apply and be required as a condition of approving projects pursuant to the Middle Housing Zoning amendments.

The HEU EIR concluded that the HEU would have the following significant and unavoidable impacts: historical resources, construction noise, wildfire, and cumulative cultural resources, cumulative construction noise, and cumulative wildfire impacts.

The following overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Middle Housing Rezoning project outweigh the significant effects on the environment:
 The proposed project will ensure that the City of Berkeley meets its State-mandated RHNA requirements, including the required buffer to comply with the State Housing Element Law.  The proposed project will encourage affordable housing, which is desired by the community and will contribute toward alleviating a shortage of housing in Berkeley and the region.  The proposed project will encourage development of a variety of types of housing at a range of income levels.
 The proposed project will encourage the development of housing with access to transit, jobs, services, and community benefits in a manner that distributes affordable and special needs housing, including in in high resource neighborhoods, and affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), the City prepared a consistency report (Attachment 1). This report demonstrates that the proposed project is consistent with the Middle Housing program analyzed in the 2023 program EIR, and that potential impacts associated with the proposed project would be consistent with potential impacts characterized in and mitigation measures developed for the 2023 EIR. Substantive revisions to the 2023 EIR are not necessary because no new significant impacts or impacts of substantially greater severity than previously described would occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the following determinations are applicable:
 No further evaluation of environmental impacts is required for the proposed project  No Subsequent EIR or negative declaration is necessary per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and no supplement to the 2023 EIR is necessary per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163  This report is the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c).

The City adopted CEQA findings pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 for the HEU, which included the Middle Housing program, on February 17, 2023. The City incorporates those findings here by reference. See also Public Resources Code section 21094(d) (“All public agencies that propose to carry out or approve the later project may utilize the prior environmental impact report and the environmental impact report on the later project to fulfill the requirements of Section 21081.”). The City has already adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(d), for the HEU, which included the Middle Housing program, and hereby incorporates that MMRP by reference.

SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth above, the City has found that the proposed project will result in project and cumulative significant adverse environmental impacts related to historical resources and construction noise that cannot be avoided following adoption, incorporation into the proposed project, and implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR. In addition, there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or avoid all of the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines §15093(b) provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions. See also Public Resources Code Section 21081(b). Having balanced the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, the City finds that the proposed project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable.

The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits of the proposed project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the benefits of the project can be found in the preceding sections of these Findings, in the Project itself, and in the record of proceedings as defined in Section 9, below. The City further finds that each of the project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record.

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

On balance, the City finds that there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project serves to override and outweigh the significant unavoidable effects identified in the Final EIR.

Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b), the City finds that these significant adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable.

SECTION 7: INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Berkeley 2023- 2031 Housing Element Update, Resolution No. 70,669 (adopting CEQA findings for the HEU and certifying the HEU EIR and adopting the MMRP for the HEU) by reference and in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, the determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

SECTION 8: RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
The project would not result in new or substantially more severed significant impacts than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment 1: Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments, Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2022010331)

Exhibit C, Attachment 1
Middle Housing Zoning and
General Plan Amendments
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing
Element Update Environmental Impact Report
SCH # 2022010331
prepared by
City of Berkeley
Planning & Development Department
Land Use Division
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, California 94704
Contact: Justin Horner, Principal Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
April 2025

Table of Contents
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report i Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 2 Background ....................................................................................................................................2

2.1 2023-2031 Housing Element Update .................................................................................2

2.2 2023-2031 Housing Element Update EIR ...........................................................................2 3 Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments Project...................................................5

3.1 Project Location..................................................................................................................5

3.2 Project Description.............................................................................................................5

3.3 Proposed Project in Relation to 2023 EIR...........................................................................7 4 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................................9

4.1 Aesthetics ...........................................................................................................................9

4.2 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................12

4.3 Biological Resources.........................................................................................................16

4.4 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................17

4.5 Energy...............................................................................................................................21

4.6 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................22

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..............................................................................................25

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................26

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality...........................................................................................29

4.10 Land Use and Planning .....................................................................................................31

4.11 Noise.................................................................................................................................32

4.12 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................35

4.13 Public Services and Recreation.........................................................................................36

4.14 Transportation..................................................................................................................36

4.15 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................38

4.16 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................39

4.17 Wildfire.............................................................................................................................40 5 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................43 6 References and Preparers............................................................................................................44

6.1 References........................................................................................................................44

6.2 List of Preparers ...............................................................................................................44 Tables
Table 1 2023 EIR Projected Buildout...............................................................................................3 Figures
Figure 1 Affected Zoning Districts .......................................................................................................6 Figure 2 Transit Priority Areas in Berkeley ........................................................................................10

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
ii

Introduction
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 1 1 Introduction
This document evaluates the consistency of the proposed Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments (“amendments” or “proposed project”) with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse #2022010331) (“2023 EIR”). The 2023 EIR was certified, the mitigation measures in the EIR were adopted and incorporated into the HEU, and the HEU was approved by the City of Berkeley (“City”) on January 18, 2023. The 2023 EIR is available for public review at:

City of Berkeley
Planning & Development Department
Land Use Division
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, California 94704
The document is also available on the City’s website: https://berkeleyca.gov/construction- development/land-use-development/general-plan-and-area-plans/housing-element-update. The 2023 EIR is hereby incorporated into this document by reference.

Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, codified in Sections 15000 et seq. of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, discusses the use of a Program EIR for environmental review of a subsequent project that is consistent with the program analyzed in the EIR. A lead agency may approve the subsequent activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the EIR; in that instance, no new environmental document would be required. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), “Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) also refers to Section 15162 as a guide for this determination. Section 15162 asks whether there is “[n]ew information of substantial importance” that the project would “have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration [or that] significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.”
The analysis herein demonstrates that the proposed project is consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update analyzed in the prior Program EIR; there is no new information of substantial importance suggesting that the project would have new or increased significant effects and that the project may be approved pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) without preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
2 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf 2 Background
This section provides an overview of 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU) and its EIR as they pertain to the proposed project to provide context for this consistency evaluation.

2.1 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
The City of Berkeley’s 2023-2031 HEU was adopted by the City Council in January of 2023 and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in February of 2023. The 2023-2031 HEU project amended the City’s General Plan by replacing the 5th Cycle Housing Element with the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element and amended other portions of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as needed for consistency and HEU implementation. The HEU includes Program 29 – Middle Housing Program, which is intended to “encourage and promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, particularly infill and converted existing housing in high resource neighborhoods.” The HEU also identifies implementation measures for the Middle Housing Program, including amending the zoning code to allow multi-unit development on one lot in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts and amending the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23.326, Demolition Ordinance, to provide a by-right pathway for demolition of single-family residences for projects that add density, were not tenant-occupied within the past five years, and did not undergo an Ellis Act eviction within the preceding five years.

2.2 2023-2031 Housing Element Update EIR
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, the 2023 EIR, which is incorporated into this document by reference, examined the potential environmental effects of the HEU, including its programs and their implementation.
2023 EIR Buildout
Table 1 summarizes the buildout analyzed in the 2023 EIR, which is based on the 2023 EIR Sites Inventory of 15,153 units, an additional 1,200 units at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, and projections for implementation programs – Middle Housing Rezoning (the proposed project) and the Southside Zoning Modification Project – totaling 2,745 units. Overall, the 2023 EIR assumed that implementation of the HEU’s programs could facilitate up to 19,098 additional units in Berkeley.

Background
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 3 Table 1 2023 EIR Projected Buildout
Total New Units
EIR Sites Inventory
Likely Sites 4,685
Pipeline Sites 2,415
Opportunity Sites 8,053
Implementation Programs
Middle Housing Rezoning 1,745
Southside Zoning Modification Project 1,000
Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations 1,200
Overall EIR Growth Assumption 19,098
Source: City of Berkeley 2023a
The Middle Housing Program was summarized as follows in the 2023 EIR’s project description.

Middle Housing Rezoning. R-1 R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts are anticipated to increase in density based on the State’s adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 9 and a proposed HEU program to facilitate increased development in lower density districts. The City would review and amend the Zoning Code and applicable objective development standards to encourage a mix of dwelling types and sizes, to promote housing for middle- and moderate-income households and increase the availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes to reduce displacement risk for residents living in overcrowded units or experiencing high housing cost burden.

The Terner Center’s SB 9 modeling indicates that the City of Berkeley could anticipate approximately 1,100 total new market-feasible units through SB 9 (Terner Center 2021). Using HCD’s methodology, and to ensure that proposed zoning would not result in a reduction in allowable residential development, the 2023 EIR assumes 770 additional units distributed throughout the R-1 districts for the 2023-2031 period. Additionally, based on current development trends and anticipated zoning changes, 975 additional units are distributed throughout the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts, for a total of 1,745 middle housing units in the 2023-2031 period.

Thus, the environmental analysis in the 2023 EIR accounted for a potential addition of 1,745 “middle housing units” in the R-1 R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts as part of Housing Element implementation.
2023 EIR Summary
The 2023 EIR found the following impacts to be less than significant without mitigation: aesthetics, biological resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems.

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

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
4 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf  Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (Construction Emissions Reduction Measures), Mitigation Measure AQ-2 (Construction Health Risk Assessment), and Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (TAC Exposure Reduction Building Measures) would reduce air quality impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Protection of Paleontological Resources) would reduce geology and soils impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 (Tribal Cultural Monitoring) would reduce tribal cultural resources impacts to less than significant levels.

The 2023 EIR found that the HEU would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to cultural resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (Historic Context Statement, Cultural Resources Survey and Designations) and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (Historic Resources Discretionary Review) would reduce cultural resources impacts to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with implementation of mitigation measures, existing historical resources and historical resources eligible for listing could still be materially impaired by future development that would result from implementation of the HEU. Specifically, the project, which includes permitting residential units with a Zoning Certificate (a ministerial action) could result in adverse impacts to as yet unidentified cultural resources. Therefore, cultural resources impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

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

The 2023 EIR also found that the HEU would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to wildfire. The HEU would facilitate development in a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ).

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

Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments Project Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 5 3 Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan
Amendments Project

3.1 Project Location
The project would amend zoning and general plan provisions related to the City’s R-1 R-1A, R-2, R- 2A and MU-R zone districts. The 2023 EIR studied the impacts of the proposed amendments in all of these districts including those portions within the Hillside Overlay. However, the proposed Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments project (proposed project) was subsequently revised after certification of the 2023 EIR to reduce the overall area that would be subject to zoning changes to exclude parcels within the Hillside Overlay. The affected zoning districts are shown in Figure 1.

3.2 Project Description
As noted above in Section 1, Background, the HEU includes Program 29—Middle Housing, which proposed to amend the zoning ordinance to allow multi-unit development on single lots in lower density districts. Accordingly, the City is now proposing to implement the zoning ordinance and General Plan amendments proposed under the HEU.

Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The proposed project includes zoning ordinance amendments to encourage the development of Multi-Family Residential Uses in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R zoning districts. Consistent with the requirements of Program 29-Middle Housing, the proposed project would permit multi-unit development (residential uses with 2 or more units) in these districts and include development standards that would physically accommodate feasible multi-unit development on one lot. The proposed changes include:
 Permitting Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential uses with a Zoning Certificate (ZC)
 Eliminating the R-1A zoning district and rezoning all current R-1A parcels to R-2 parcels;  Revising development standards related to building height, lot coverage and setbacks, to permit larger residential buildings;
 Establishing new minimum and maximum density standards;  Revising requirements related to Residential Additions and additional bedrooms;  Limiting the size of new single-family homes that are permitted with a ZC; and  Permitting demolition of single-family homes with a ZC if they are part of a project that includes a net increase in units.

The proposed development standards largely preserve existing zoning code maximum height limits of 35 feet, while providing development standards that permit larger projects (and more dwelling units) through a nondiscretionary process based on objective standards. The proposed standards also include lower maximum heights near the rear property line, in consideration of potential impacts on neighboring properties and solar access.

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
6 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf Figure 1 Affected Zoning Districts
Proposed General Plan Amendments
The proposed zoning changes require conforming General Plan amendments. The amendments include:
 Removal of R-1A Zoning District. The proposed zoning changes include consolidating parcels currently zoned as R-1A and R-2 into a single R-2 zoning district. The proposed General Plan amendments include removal of references to the R-1A zoning district.  Land Use Classification Descriptions. Currently, there are three different land use classifications that characterize the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A zoning districts

1. Low Density Residential for the R-1 and Environmental Safety Residential (ES-R) zoning districts.

2. Low Medium Density Residential for the R-1A and R-2 zoning districts.

3. Medium Density Residential for the R-2A and R-3 zoning districts.

Staff proposes reducing the number of land use classifications that apply to these districts to two. This is consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to consolidate the R-1A

Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments Project Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 7 and R-2 zoning districts and to adopt development standards that are largely consistent across these low-density residential zoning districts. Specifically, staff recommends:

1. Renaming the Low Density Residential classification to Lower Density Residential.

2. Assigning the Medium Density Residential classification to the R-2, R-2A and R-3 zoning districts.

3. Including technical edits that reflect the Planning Commission’s recommendation with respect to the names of zoning districts and the proposed development standards.

The proposed General Plan amendments also include minor changes to the Mixed-Use Residential land use classification to accurately state the zoning district’s Floor Area Ratio and height regulations.
 Encouraging Transit-Proximate Infill. Adds language to note State law requirements, the Housing Element, and encouraging infill in low-density neighborhoods, and revises language to clarify that residential uses are to be encourage “in proximity” to transit corridors, not just “along” transit corridors.
 Changing Existing Zoning Standards. Current General Plan language includes a policy of “maintaining existing zoning” in residential neighborhoods. The zoning ordinance amendments change existing development standards in residential neighborhoods.

Adds language that the General Plan encourages “zoning development standards that are consistent with historic development patterns that include smaller multi-family dwellings on a single lot.”
 Allowing Residential Uses Ministerially. The zoning ordinance amendments include permitting residential uses with a ZC. The General Plan amendments remove language that requires preservation of Use Permits for all residential projects.  General Plan Map Amendments. Consistent with the recommended General Plan text changes, the General Plan Map would be amended to a) rename the Low Density Residential classification; and b) expand the Medium Density Residential classification to include the R-2 and R-2A zoning districts.

Consistency with Housing Element Program 29 – Middle Housing The proposed project is consistent with Housing Element Program 29—Middle Housing, as described and analyzed in the 2023 EIR. As noted above, the 2023 EIR described the program as increasing residential development densities for the lower density residential districts, including R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R. According to the 2023 EIR, the program would also “review and amend the Zoning Code and applicable objective development standards to encourage a mix of dwelling types and sizes, to promote housing for middle- and moderate-income households and increase the availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes.” The proposed project is smaller in scope than the project analyzed in the 2023 EIR, as it does not apply to parcels located in the Hillside Overlay zoning district.

The proposed zoning and General Plan amendments accomplish these goals by allowing multi-unit residential development in R-1, rezoning R-1A parcels R-2, establishing new minimum and maximum densities in these districts, revising development standards to permit larger structures (with more

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
8 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf units), and streamlining the permitting process for qualifying residential development and demolition necessary to construct additional residential units.

Projected Buildout
The City has conducted an analysis of the affected parcels to determine the potential buildout under the proposed amendments. As noted above, the 2023 EIR conducted a similar analysis and concluded that the Housing Element Update could be expected to produce 1,745 middle housing units in the 2023-2031 period.

Under the proposed zoning and General Plan amendments, the City would expect fewer SB 9 units than anticipated in the 2023 EIR, because the proposed amendments permit multi-unit residential development in the R-1 zoning district outside of the Hillside Overlay zoning district, thereby rendering this part of the R-1 zoning district no longer a “single-family residential zone” subject to SB 9. The changes to minimum and maximum densities in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts, as well as the conversion of R-1A parcels to R-2 parcels, would result in approximately 876 new residential units.

The City reached this conclusion by determining that approximately 8,380 parcels could be developed or redeveloped with more residential units under the proposed project. These parcels were included in the projection because they meet the following conditions:
 Located in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts;  Are not in the Hillside Overlay;
 Are at least 3,000 square feet in area (estimated minimum size for likely middle housing development); and
 Are either vacant or occupied by a single-family dwelling unit or a duplex.

For the 8,380 parcels identified, a total of 876 units was projected using the methodology used in the 2023 EIR. Estimated buildout includes:
 3,246 parcels in the R-1 District are estimated to produce 260 units. The projection of 260 units throughout the R-1 zoning district was calculated using the same methodology used on the 2023 EIR, which was based on a study from the Terner Center of redevelopment potential in low-density zones subject to SB 9.1 Because SB 9 permits lot splits and multi-family development on parcels in single-family zoning districts at densities similar to those allowed by the Middle Housing zoning changes, SB 9 estimates from the Terner Center are a reasonable approximation of the level of the development the City can expect from the proposed Middle Housing changes.

The Terner Center’s SB 9 modeling indicated that the City of Berkeley could anticipate approximately a 0.08 utilization rate from eligible parcels. 3,246 eligible parcels x 0.08 = 260 total units.
 5,134 parcels in the R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts are estimated to produce 616 units.

The projection of the additional 616 units throughout the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R zoning districts was based upon the application of a utilization rate to 5,134 parcels in these districts identified as single-family homes or duplexes, and therefore most likely to redevelop under the Middle Housing zoning changes. Staff used the Terner Center’s methodology in the case of 1 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SB-9-Brief-July-2021-Final.pdf

Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments Project Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 9 these parcels, as well, but increased the rate by 50% (to 0.12), as staff determined, based on project proposals and development trends at the time of the preparation of the 2023 EIR, that it was about 50% more likely that redevelopment would take place on more standard flatlands lots (5,134 parcels x 0.12 = 616).

Therefore, overall, the proposed project would result in an additional 876 units compared to existing conditions, which is less than the 1,745 units estimated in the 2023 EIR.

3.3 Proposed Project in Relation to 2023 EIR
The project would amend zoning and General Plan provisions related to the City’s R-1 R-1A, R-2, R- 2A and MU-R zone districts as envisioned in the HEU and analyzed in the 2023 EIR. The 2023 EIR studied the impacts of the proposed amendments in all of these districts, including those portions within the Hillside Overlay. However, the proposed project reduces the area of the City where the project’s changes would apply, as the changes currently proposed would not apply to parcels within the Hillside Overlay.

The 2023 EIR estimated that the Middle Housing Program would result in up to 1,745 new residential units compared to existing conditions in the affected zoning districts, including within the Hillside Overlay. Using the same methodology as the 2023 EIR, it is estimated that the amendments as proposed would now generate up to 876 new residential units compared to existing conditions.

Overall, the proposed project would result in less buildout than what was anticipated and evaluated in the 2023 EIR by 869 units. Therefore, the project is consistent with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, and geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts in the 2023 EIR. Moreover, because it would result in less buildout, it would have lesser environmental impacts than identified in the 2023 EIR.

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
10 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf 4 Environmental Impacts
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15168(c)(2) and 15162, this section evaluates the project’s potential environmental impacts with respect to the analysis in the 2023 EIR to determine whether additional environmental analysis is required. The existing (2024) environmental conditions in the affected zoning districts are substantially the same as the existing conditions described in the 2023 EIR, as substantial new development has not occurred in these areas.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of environmental topic areas suggested for assessment in CEQA analyses. This report evaluates all of these issue areas, which are listed below, with the exception of Agriculture and Forest Resources and Mineral Resources, as these resources are not present within the affected zone districts.2
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Transportation
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Wildfire

4.1 Aesthetics
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of 2023 EIR, the HEU, which includes the proposed project, would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since most new buildings would be of a similar height as existing development and views that would be affected are already fully or intermittently impeded by mature trees and buildings. Development under the HEU, which includes the proposed project, would be subject to the City’s general development standards (Berkeley Municipal Code [BMC] Chapter 23.304) as well as objective development standards to ensure that buildings are compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale.

Development under the HEU would replace facilities such as parking lots with buildings that may reduce nighttime sources of light, and new light sources would likely be adjacent and similar to nearby light sources. Development would also be required to comply with BMC Sections 23.304.100 and 23.304.130 which require exterior lighting to be shielded to avoid light spillover onto adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, the closest State Scenic Highway to the city is I-580 in Oakland approximately 1.6 miles from the city limits, and the closest eligible State Scenic Highway is SR 13 located approximately 0.5 miles from the city limits. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, conflict with applicable local regulations governing 2 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update EIR, pp. 1-5, 1-6.

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 11 scenic quality, create a new source of substantial light and glare, or substantially damage scenic resources within a scenic highway. Therefore, aesthetics impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
Senate Bill 743 (California Public Resources Code Section 21099) passed in 2013, made changes to CEQA for projects located in transit-oriented development areas. Among these changes are that a project’s aesthetics impacts are no longer considered significant impacts on the environment if the project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project and if the project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area (TPA). Pursuant to Section 21099 of the California Public Resources Code, a “transit priority area” is defined as an area within 0.5 mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. A "major transit stop" is defined in Section 21064.3 of the California Public Resources Code as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The majority of the affected zoning districts (R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R outside of the Hillside Overlay) are within a TPA, as shown on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Transit Priority Areas maps (MTC 2021) and Figure 2; for these, impacts would be less than significant by definition, as discussed in the 2023 EIR. Therefore, this discussion pertains to the very limited number of affected parcels outside of TPAs, in limited blocks on the southside, southeast Berkeley and northwest Berkeley.

Figure 2 Transit Priority Areas in Berkeley

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
12 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf Lot coverage, building heights and setbacks would be modified in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU- R outside of the Hillside Overlay to accommodate additional housing types. The main changes that would affect building massing and appearance would include:
 Change to building height limits to a maximum of 35 feet with a reduction to 22 feet within 15 feet of the rear property line, rather than average of 28 feet, in R districts;  Reducing minimum setbacks;
 Increasing allowable lot coverage from 35-50%, depending on location, to 60% in R districts;  Changing usable open space requirements from a minimum size to varying with building size As discussed on page 4.17 of the 2023 EIR, development of individual sites under the proposed amendments would not substantially block public views from roadways in these areas as new buildings would be of a generally similar height as existing development and many of the views that would be affected are already fully or intermittently impeded by mature trees and buildings.

Impacts of the proposed project would be below the impacts of the HEU’s Middle Housing program, which was analyzed in the 2023 EIR, as the proposed project would implement a reduced program.

Similar to the analysis in the 2023 EIR of citywide Housing Element implementation, there are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Berkeley and no affected parcels are near to or clearly visible from a State Scenic Highway.

As discussed in the 2023 EIR, Berkeley is an urban area as defined by CEQA, so the threshold for visual character is whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As the project itself sets zoning standards, development facilitated by the proposed amendments would be consistent with those regulations related to building use, height and massing. The changes, in addition to the potential change in aesthetic character of some new or altered buildings to a more multi-family appearance, would result in an incremental change in visual character on some parcels, especially in the R-1 District, to a more multi-family aesthetic and incrementally greater massing, while preserving the overall collective character through generally maintaining height limits. Future development with two or more units would be required to comply with the City’s proposed set of objective development standards. The objective standards will be tailored to streamline middle housing projects by providing a clear and consistent set of review rules and processes. Examples of standards that the City will define include building height, setback distances, and maximum units allowed per acre. This would ensure that future development is compatible with the character and scale of Berkeley according to the City’s standards. Impacts of the proposed project would be the same as the impacts of the HEU’s Middle Housing program, which was analyzed in the 2023 EIR, as the proposed project would implement the program as envisioned.

Consistent with the analysis in the 2023 EIR, development facilitated by the proposed project would occur as redevelopment of existing built sites or infill development of parcels between existing built sites in existing residential neighborhoods where sources of light and glare already exist. Lighting would likely be congruous with nearby light sources (e.g., lighting from other residential windows).

Berkeley’s Municipal Code has requirements to reduce the potential for new or substantial sources of light pollution in Berkeley. BMC Sections 23.304.100 and 23.304.130 require that exterior lighting be shielded to avoid light spillover onto adjacent residential properties. Impacts of the proposed project would be the same as the impacts of the HEU’s Middle Housing program, which was analyzed in the 2023 EIR, as the proposed project would implement the program as envisioned.

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 13 Pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21099.d, “aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.” Analysis of impacts related to historic or cultural resources is provided below in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
The proposed project is within the scope of the HEU covered by the 2023 EIR. The proposed project will not have any new or substantially more severe significant effects related to aesthetics than were identified in the 2023 EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to aesthetics, similar to the 2023 EIR. Furthermore, aesthetics impacts within TPAs, where most of the affected parcels are located, are not considered to be significant effects on the environment. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to aesthetics than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

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

According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), construction of individual projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore could result in potentially significant health risk impacts (OEHHA 2015). Future construction that could result from implementation of the HEU could exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds for increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million and an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute), and result in potentially significant impacts related to construction toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU, construction-related TAC impacts were found to be less than significant. The 2023 EIR determined

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
14 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf that operation of land uses facilitated by buildout of the HEU would not include sources of TACs such as freeways and high-volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities, and also would not include new stationary sources onsite such as emergency diesel generators (BAAQMD 2017). Therefore, the 2023 EIR found less than significant impacts related to operational TACs.

In 2005, CARB issued recommendations to avoid siting new residences within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day or close to known stationary TAC sources (CARB 2005). BAAQMD’s average daily traffic (ADT) threshold is lower, at 10,000 vehicles per day (BAAQMD 2012); therefore, this analysis conservatively uses BAAQMD’s ADT threshold. Development consistent with the HEU could place sensitive receptors living in housing within approximately 500 to 1,000 feet of Interstate 580 (I-580) and Interstate 80 (I-80).

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

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be facilitated by the proposed amendments would be within those studied in the 2023 EIR, which includes the Middle Housing program. Therefore, emissions from construction and operation of future development would be within those disclosed in the 2023 EIR.

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

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

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

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 15 B. All construction equipment shall be equipped with Tier 2 or higher engines and the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type (Tier 4 engines automatically meet this requirement) as certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications. In addition, a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (Emissions Plan) shall be prepared that includes the following:
 An equipment inventory summarizing the type of off-road equipment required for each phase of construction, including the equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. For all VDECS, the equipment inventory shall also include the technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, CARB verification number level, and installation date.
 A Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully with the Emissions Plan and acknowledges that a significant violation of the Emissions Plan shall constitute a material breach of contract. The Emissions Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

Previously adopted 2023 EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, incorporated in the City’s Standard COAs, would remain applicable and would continue to be implemented and monitored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
16 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf AQ-2 Construction Health Risk Assessment
For individual projects (excluding ADUs, single-family residences, and duplexes) where construction activities would occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, would last longer than two months, and would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment, the project applicant shall prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA). The HRA shall determine potential risk and compare the risk to the following BAAQMD thresholds:
 Non-compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan;  Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
 Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or  Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average
If risk exceeds the thresholds, measures such as requiring the use of Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment shall be incorporated to reduce the risk to appropriate levels.

AQ-3 TAC Exposure Reduction Building Measures
The following design features shall be incorporated for residential development located within 1,000 feet of I-580/80 or on a lot that fronts on a section of roadway with 10,000 vehicles per day or more in order to reduce exposure of proposed residences to TACs from vehicles and stationary combustion engines (i.e., generators):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 17 Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts after mitigation with respect to air quality, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to air quality than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR, with the exception of parcels in the Hillside Overlay. Ground disturbance would occur in similar areas and building massing would be only incrementally larger and on sites scattered throughout urbanized areas of the city. Therefore, potential impacts to sensitive natural areas or communities, and species habitat or species, would be within those disclosed in the 2023 EIR.

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

Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Birds. Initial site disturbance activities, including vegetation and concrete removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 to August 30), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
18 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation and concrete removal. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed inside the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and January 31.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to biological resources, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to biological resources than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 19 to the City’s permit review or zoning application requirements to be adversely impacted, and Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which were adopted and incorporated into the HEU, would be required to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with implementation of previously-adopted Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL- 2, existing and eligible historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development that would be facilitated by the HEU because specific actions intended for the reduction of impacts to historical resources could be deemed infeasible. In addition, the 2023 EIR determined that future projects that are not subject to discretionary review and have not been previously evaluated for the presence of historical resources could result in the demolition of potential historic resources.

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

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

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The affected zoning districts are within those studied for the Middle Housing program in the 2023 EIR. Demolition of buildings and ground disturbance that could encounter archaeological resources or human remains would occur in the same areas of the affected districts and to the same extent as that disclosed in the 2023 EIR. The same regulations, Standard COAs, and 2023 EIR mitigation measures would apply.

Regarding historic resources specifically, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (which requires a historical resources assessment for projects subject to discretionary review) would not apply to ministerial Middle Housing projects on sites with structures that have not been previously evaluated to initiate a landmark or structure-of-merit designation, because discretionary review would not be required in such cases. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would also assist the City in identifying historic resources independently of individual project applications. Once those resources are identified, the provisions of BMC Chapter 3.24.200 (discussed below) would apply and would reduce impacts to these resources. Moreover, the amendments allowing ministerial approval for certain residential projects are consistent with the Middle Housing program analyzed in the 2023 EIR (which states that the purpose of Middle Housing program is to “facilitate increased development in lower density districts”), and therefore are within those studied in the 2023 EIR.

For sites that are designated historic sites, landmarks or structures of merit, CUL-2 would apply to reduce impacts to historical resources. BMC Chapter 3.24.200 states that “any construction, alteration or demolition for which a permit is required” that is “to be carried out on a designated landmark, in a designated historic district or structure of merit” must be approved by the Landmarks Preservation Board. While a ZC is not a permit, a project approved with a ZC needs to obtain a

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
20 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf Building Permit, so would be subject to this requirement, if applicable. Thus, even though the project would permit the demolition of a single-family home that is not tenant-occupied with a ZC in certain cases, the project would exempt designated landmarks, structures in designated historic districts, and structures of merit from this streamlined requirement. Such projects would be required to obtain the approval of the Landmarks Preservation Commission for a demolition.

Accordingly, the proposed project is consistent with the Middle Housing program analyzed in the 2023 EIR and the mitigation measures adopted therein.

However, although the continued implementation, when applicable, of 2023 EIR mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible, existing and eligible historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development that would be facilitated by the proposed project. Material impairment could occur because specific actions intended for the reduction of impacts to historical resources could be determined to be infeasible. Material impairment could also occur because future projects that are not subject to discretionary review on sites with structures that have not been previously evaluated to initiate a landmark or structure-of-merit designation could result in the demolition of potential but unknown historic resources. Although future development would be required to comply with mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, when applicable, as adopted in the 2023 EIR, similar to the HEU as a whole, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts related to historical resources would be consistent with what was evaluated in the 2023 EIR.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
Historical Resources
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to cultural resources, and no new mitigation measures are required. Previously adopted Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would remain applicable and would continue to be implemented and monitored. As stated above, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would not be applicable to projects that are not subject to discretionary review on sites with structures that have not been previously evaluated to initiate a landmark or structure-of-merit designation. However, this would not be a new impact because it was analyzed in the 2023 EIR, as stated above.

CUL-1 Historic Context Statement, Cultural Resources Survey and Designations During the period of this Housing Element, the City should conduct a citywide historic context statement and a cultural resource survey to identify historic resources, with priority given to sites in the 2023 EIR Site Inventory, to determine if there are designed built environment features which are over 40 years of age proposed to be altered or demolished. Designation of historic or cultural resources should be conducted by the Landmarks Preservation Commission pursuant to 3.24.260 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

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

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 21 the property qualifies for federal, state, or local historical resources designation. All age eligible properties shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a technical memorandum with Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore:

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

B. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project proponent and/or lead agency and the qualified professional would meet to determine the appropriate

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
22 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf avoidance measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City of Berkeley. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by the qualified professional according to current professional standards.

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

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

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

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

Conclusion
Historical Resources
Previously adopted Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would remain applicable to the proposed project, although, as discussed in the 2023 EIR, Mitigation Measure CUL- 2 would not apply to ministerial Middle Housing projects on sites with structures that have not been previously evaluated to initiate a landmark or structure-of-merit designation. Even with implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the adopted HEU. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to historical resources than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to archaeological resources and human remains, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to archaeological resources or human remains than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 23 the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

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

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

In addition, the HEU would be consistent with state renewable energy and energy efficiency plans as well as the City’s General Plan policies related to energy. Impacts of the HEU would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be facilitated by the proposed amendments would be below what was anticipated and evaluated in the 2023 EIR for the Middle Housing program. Therefore, energy use from construction or operation would be consistent with estimates disclosed in the 2023 EIR.

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

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
24 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to energy, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to energy than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 25 The 2023 EIR found that construction activities related to the HEU would potentially result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR. Ground disturbance would occur in similar areas, depth of excavation would be similar, location and density of housing would be similar, and the same policies, regulations and standard conditions of approval would apply.

Therefore, potential impacts geologic hazards, soils and paleontological resources would be within those disclosed in the 2023 EIR.

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

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

If underlying formations are found to have a high potential for paleontological resources, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall create a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program, which will be approved by the City and contain the following elements:
 Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff.
 Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work) in sediments assigned a high paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified Paleontological Resources Monitor, as defined by the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist based on the observation of the geologic setting from initial ground disturbance, and subject to the review and approval by the City. If the Qualified Professional Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions once the

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
26 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf full depth of excavations has been reached, they may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or ceased entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist at that time. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. A Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources.

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

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to geology and soils, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to geology and soils than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the 2023 EIR, full buildout of the HEU would generate 81,985 MT of CO2e per year, equating to an increase of 1.7 MT of CO2e per service population per year. As analyzed in the 2023 EIR, the HEU’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 1.7 MT of CO2e per service population per year would not exceed the BAAQMD’s interpolated 2031 target of 3.7 MT CO2e per service population at the plan-level3 (refer below to the “Impacts of the Proposed Project” section for interpolation methodology). Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions were found to be less than significant.

The 2023 EIR found that the HEU would be consistent with GHG reduction goals and policies in the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, and the City’s Climate Action Plan 3 BAAQMD developed plan-level thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies with determining significance for long-range local and regional plans. Local long-range plans are discretionary, program-level planning activities, such as general plans and general plan elements, specific plans, area plans, community plans, congestion management plans, and annexations of lands and service areas. The proposed project involves Zoning Ordinance and General Plan amendments to facilitate housing in the Southside Area. Plan-level thresholds are used instead of project-level thresholds because the proposed project constitutes as a programmatic document and applies to the Southside Area.

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 27 (CAP). Therefore, 2013 EIR determined that the HEU would have less than significant impacts related to conflicting with an applicable GHG reduction plan.

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be facilitated by the proposed amendments would be below those studied in the 2023 EIR for the Middle Housing program because the Hillside Overlay is excluded from the proposed project. Therefore, emissions from construction and operation (vehicle trips and building sources) of future development would be within those disclosed in the 2023 EIR.

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

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

Future development projects facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s Standard COA related to Environmental Site Assessments, Soil and Groundwater Management Plans, Building 4 EMAs can be located using the City’s Environment GIS portal:
https://berkeley.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2c7dfafbb1f64e159f4fdf28a52f51c6&showLayers=Berkeley%20Par cels;Environment.

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
28 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf Materials Surveys, and Hazardous Materials Business Plans, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

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

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

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 29 intended land use. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed amendments would affect the same zoning districts and parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR. Ground disturbance associated with development of new residential units would occur in the same areas as studied in the 2023 EIR on sites scattered throughout urbanized areas of the city. The same existing regulations and standard conditions of approval would apply. Potential impacts related to hazardous materials use, contaminated sites, and risk of release would be within those disclosed in the 2023 EIR.

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

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

A. Environmental Site Assessments

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

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

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

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
30 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf B. Soil and Groundwater Management Plan

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

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

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

C. Building Materials Survey

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

D. Hazardous Materials Business Plan

1. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) in compliance with BMC Section 15.12.040 shall be submitted electronically at http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/ within 30 days if on-site hazardous materials exceed BMC 15.20.040. HMBP requirement can be found at http://ci.berkeley.ca.us/hmr/
Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 31

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

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

Development under the HEU, including development resulting from the Middle Housing program, would also be required to comply with the BMC and the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (No. CAS612008). Development design would include BMPs to avoid adverse effects associated with stormwater runoff quality. The 2023 EIR stated that development would also be required to implement LID Measures and on-site infiltration, as required under the C.3 provisions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). Provision C.3 requires projects that create and/or replace between 2,500 square feet and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface to install at least one of a menu of site-specific design measures to either redirect runoff into vegetated areas or to include design site features with permeable surfaces.

In addition to Provision C.3, development would also be required to comply with Provisions C.6 (Construction Site Control), C.10 (Trash Load Reduction), and C.15 (Exempted Discharges) of the MRP, which would reduce operational water quality impacts to a less than significant level.

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

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

The 2023 EIR noted that development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the following provisions within the BMC:

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
32 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf  Preservation and Restoration of Natural Watercourses – Chapter 17.08. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate: (1) building over or near culverted creeks; (2) building near open creeks; (3) the rehabilitation and restoration of natural waterways; and (4) the management of watersheds.
 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control – Chapter 17.20. This chapter provides the stormwater requirements for projects conducted within the City of Berkeley and is consistent with the requirements of the San Francisco RWQCB and the MRP permit. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Berkeley’s citizens by eliminating non-stormwater discharges to the City’s storm drain system and by reducing the contamination of stormwater by pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.
 Standards of Construction in Special Flood Hazard Zones – Chapter 17.12. The ordinance also ensures that property owners construct new and substantially improved buildings in the 100-year floodplain in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program’s goals to protect life and property. Section 500 of this chapter addresses standards of construction in special flood hazard areas. Section 530 addresses coastal high hazard areas vulnerable to future sea level rise.
 Grading, erosion and sediment control requirements – Section 21.40.270. This requires projects to comply with all grading, erosion and sediment control regulations on file in the Public Works Department.

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR. Construction, ground disturbance and new residential units would occur in the same areas as studied in the 2023 EIR, with the exception of the Hillside Overlay, on sites scattered throughout urbanized areas of the city. It is anticipated that the proposed zoning changes, which expand developable area within a lot and encourage larger residential development projects, would typically create and/or replace at least 2,500 square feet of impervious surface. Staff anticipates, given the built-out character of the R-1, R-2, R-2A and MU-R zones, that middle housing projects would primarily consist of redevelopment of already urbanized parcels which include impervious surfaces, not development on vacant greenfield parcels. Changes in impermeable surfaces would be the same as analyzed in the 2023 EIR; although the additional allowable lot coverage and smaller setbacks may result in an incrementally greater coverage on small, scattered sites, these would not individually or in combination be extensive enough to affect drainage patterns, substantially increase runoff, or decrease water quality or groundwater recharge, and the same existing regulations and Standard COAs would apply.

Potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be within those disclosed in the 2023 EIR.

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 33 Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to hydrology and water quality, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed project would include Zoning Ordinance amendments and associated General Plan text amendments to implement the Middle Housing program as envisioned in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR. The allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be facilitated by the proposed amendments would be within those studied in the 2023 EIR for the Middle Housing program. The proposed amendments implement the City’s Housing Element and would therefore be consistent with the Housing Element, which included the proposed project, and with the City’s General Plan. Impacts related to land use would be the same as for the program studied in the 2023 EIR and would be less than significant.

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

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
34 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to land use and planning, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to land use and planning than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

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

Operation of projects facilitated by the HEU would include mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, delivery and trash trucks, and other noise- generating activities. However, such activities would be similar to the existing noise environment, and development would be required to comply with Section 13.40.070 of the BMC, which states that stationary machines and other devices located on the exterior of structures which generate sounds perceptible outside the perimeters of the lot on which the machine or other device is located must be installed with such sound transmission control measures to adequately minimize or eliminate the transmission of the sound to a level not to exceed 60 dBA on weekdays and 50 dBA on weekends for single family residential beyond property perimeters; Section 23130 of the California Motor Vehicle Code which establishes maximum sound levels of 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet for trucks operating at speeds less than 35 miles per hour; Section 13.40.070 of the BMC which prohibits operating or permitting the operation of a mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool before 7:00 a.m. on a weekday (or before 9:00 a.m. on a weekend or holiday) or after 7:00 p.m. on a weekday (or after 8:00 p.m. on a weekend or holiday) such that the sound therefrom across a residential or commercial real property line violates BMC Section 13.40.050 or 13.40.060; and Section 19.29 of the BMC which includes the 2019 California Residential Code, as adopted in Title 24 Part 2.5 of the California Code of Regulations, which would reduce operational noise impacts to a less than significant level. As discussed in the 2023 EIR, daily VMT from the HEU would increase by approximately 6 percent over existing 2020 conditions by the year 2031. A 6 percent increase in traffic on a roadway would equate to an increase in noise of 0.2 dBA, which would not double the existing mobile noise source and would not increase noise levels by even the most conservative threshold of 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase. Off-site traffic noise impacts were therefore found to be less than significant.

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 35 The 2023 EIR found that construction activities related to development facilitated by the HEU would not result in significant vibration impacts with adherence to the City’s Standard COA related to construction vibration. The 2023 EIR also found that groundborne vibration in the vicinity of development facilitated by the HEU would be primarily generated by vehicular travel on the local roadways. However, the HEU would not increase traffic trips such that it would be perceptible to nearby noise-sensitive receptors, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR, with the exception of parcels in the Hillside Overlay. The allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be facilitated by the proposed amendments would be within those studied in the 2023 EIR for the Middle Housing program. The same regulations and Standard COAs would apply to development under the proposed amendments. Impacts related to noise would be the same as for the program studied in the 2023 EIR and would be significant and unavoidable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
36 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf B. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

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

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

E. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 37 Damage Due to Construction Vibration. The project applicant shall submit screening level analysis prior to, or concurrent with demolition building permit. If a screening level analysis shows that the project has the potential to result in damage to structures, a structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall be retained to prepare a vibration impact assessment (assessment). The assessment shall take into account project specific information such as the composition of the structures, location of the various types of equipment used during each phase of the project, as well as the soil characteristics in the project area, in order to determine whether project construction may cause damage to any of the structures identified as potentially impacted in the screening level analysis. If the assessment finds that the project may cause damage to nearby structures, the structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall recommend design means and methods of construction that avoid the potential damage, if feasible. The assessment and its recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety Division and the Zoning Officer. If there are no feasible design means or methods to eliminate the potential for damage, the structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall undertake an existing conditions study (study) of any structures (or, in case of large buildings, of the portions of the structures) that may experience damage. This study shall establish the baseline condition of these structures, including, but not limited to, the location and extent of any visible cracks or spalls; and include written descriptions and photographs.

Conclusion
The City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for construction noise reduction and management and BMC requirements would still be applicable to development under the proposed project. However, even with implementation of these conditions, impacts related to construction noise would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the HEU. Nonetheless, no substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to noise than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR. The allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
38 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf facilitated by the proposed amendments would be within those studied in the 2023 EIR for the Middle Housing program, and in fact would generate less population and have the potential to displace fewer housing units, as they would result in fewer units than analyzed for the Middle Housing program in the 2023 EIR. Impacts related to population and housing would be the same as for the program studied in the 2023 EIR and would be less than significant.

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

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to population and housing, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to population and housing than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR, with the exception of parcels in the Hillside Overlay. The allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be facilitated by the proposed amendments would be less than those studied in the 2023 EIR for the Middle Housing program and would therefore generate reduced demand for public services and parks/recreational facilities. The same fees, regulations, and policies would apply. The proposed project would allow greater lot coverage for certain residential developments than is currently allowed, but this change to development standards is consistent with the Middle Housing program described and analyzed in the 2023 EIR, which anticipated the City would “review and amend the Zoning Code and applicable objective development standards to encourage a mix of dwelling types and sizes.” Impacts related to public services and recreation would be the same as for the program studied in the 2023 EIR and would be less than significant.

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

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 39 Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to public services and recreation, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to public services and recreation than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

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

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

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR, except for parcels in the

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
40 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf Hillside Overlay. The allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be facilitated by the proposed amendments would be within those studied in the 2023 EIR for the Middle Housing program. The proposed amendments also would not apply in the Hillside Overlay, where emergency access is most constrained, thus resulting in lesser impacts than those studied in the 2023 EIR. Therefore, impacts related to vehicle miles traveled; roadway, pedestrian and bicycle facilities; transit; and traffic safety/circulation would be within those disclosed in the 2023 EIR.

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

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to transportation, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to transportation than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

4.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts Identified in the 2023 EIR
As discussed in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the 2023 EIR, ground-disturbing activities associated with the HEU could expose and adversely affect previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as tribal cultural resources. However, impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s Standard COAs related to archaeological resources and human remains set forth above under Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, as well as Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU and would require tribal cultural monitoring.

Impacts of the Proposed project
The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR, except for parcels in the Hillside Overlay. Ground disturbance would occur in similar areas on sites scattered throughout urbanized areas of the city. The same mitigation measures from the 2023 EIR that required Native American tribal consultation processes would apply. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be within those disclosed in the 2023 EIR.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to Tribal Cultural Resources, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COAs related to archaeological resources and human remains, set forth above in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, which apply to the HEU as a whole, would remain applicable. Previously adopted 2023 EIR Mitigation Measure TCR-1, ,

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 41 incorporated in the City’s Standard COAs, also would remain applicable and would continue to be implemented and monitored.

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

Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with mitigation with respect to tribal cultural resources, similar to the 2023 EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the 2023 EIR, development facilitated by the HEU would generate approximately 765,688 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. EBMUD

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
42 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf projects that 61 mgd of wastewater will be collected and treated in the EBMUD Special District No.1 by 2040. Therefore, the HEU would generate approximately 1.3 percent of the wastewater collected and treated in in the district by 2040. The increased wastewater generation would be within the remaining capacity of EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP), and the plant’s existing wastewater treatment capacity would be sufficient to accommodate the increase in population facilitated by the HEU. Additionally, as discussed in the 2023 EIR, although the construction of new or expanded sewer mains may be necessary to accommodate additional wastewater flow, development would be required to comply with the City’s Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance (BMC Section 17.24.130) (City of Berkeley 2023c) and impacts related to individual new sewer main construction projects would be less than significant due to their temporary nature, adherence to existing requirements, and the already developed nature of wastewater conveyance corridors. Development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with BMC Title 17 which establishes City standards related to wastewater discharge, peak flow, and sewer capacity. Every person, firm, corporation or entity desiring to construct a new connection to sewer services to the City’s sanitary sewer system would be required to pay a connection fee in the amount as established by City Council resolution. With adherence to City regulations and General Plan policies, impacts related to wastewater conveyance and the construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities were found to be less than significant.

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

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR. The allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be facilitated by the proposed amendments would be within those studied in the 2023 EIR for the Middle Housing program. Impacts related to utilities and service systems, including water demand, wastewater and stormwater generation, solid waste generation, and electricity, natural gas and telecommunications service, would be within those disclosed in the 2023 EIR.

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

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

Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 43 Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

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

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

Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed amendments would affect the same parcels as envisioned for the Middle Housing program and studied for development or redevelopment in the 2023 EIR, with the exception of those in the Hillside Overlay, which are within or closer to fire hazard zones. The allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be facilitated by the proposed amendments would be less than those studied in the 2023 EIR for the Middle Housing program. The same regulations, mitigation measure and standard conditions of approval would apply. Impacts related to wildfire would be reduced compared to those disclosed and analyzed in the 2023 EIR.

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
44 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to wildfire, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COA requiring preparation of a Transportation Construction Plan, as referenced in the 2023 EIR and shown below, would remain applicable.

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

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

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

Conclusion
Similar to the HEU, even with continued implementation of the City’s Standard COA for a Transportation Construction Plan, wildfire impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Nonetheless, no substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 EIR.

There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to wildfire than were identified in the 2023 EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 EIR have been met.

Conclusion
Evaluation of Consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report 45 5 Conclusion
This report demonstrates that the proposed project is consistent with the Middle Housing program analyzed in the 2023 EIR, and that potential impacts associated with the proposed project would be consistent with potential impacts characterized in and mitigation measures developed for the 2023 EIR. Substantive revisions to the 2023 EIR are not necessary because no new significant impacts or impacts of substantially greater severity than previously described would occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the following determinations are applicable:
 No further evaluation of environmental impacts is required for the proposed project  No Subsequent EIR or negative declaration is necessary per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162  This report is the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c).

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), this report will be included in the public record and will be considered as part of the deliberations on the proposed project. Documents related to this report will be available at the City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department.

City of Berkeley
Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments
46 City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ATT%202%20FEIR_RTC.pdf 6 References and Preparers

6.1 References
Berkeley, City of. 2023. City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use- development/general-plan-and-area-plans/housing-element-update

6.2 List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this consistency analysis under contract to the City of Berkeley.

Persons and firms involved in data gathering, analysis, project management, and quality control include the following:

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal-in-Charge
Karly Kaufman, MESM, Senior Reviewer and QAQC1903245.1

ATTACHMENT 6
Review of Prior City Council Actions and Referrals related to Middle Housing At its meeting of July 23, 2024, the City Council directed staff to review prior referrals and to respond to any specific questions or requests included in those referrals.

Responses are included below.

Housing Accountability Act Referral
On July 11, 2017 the City Council adopted the Housing Accountability Act referral, directing the City Manager and Planning Commission to consider the following actions.  Request: Amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to adopt numerical density and/or building intensity standards that can be applied on a parcel-by- parcel basis in an easy and predictable manner. These would constitute reliable and understandable “objective general plan and zoning standards” that would establish known maximum densities. This could be done across the board or for specified districts.

Response: The proposed zoning and General Plan amendments include numerical minimum and maximum density standards.
 Request: Devise and adopt “objective, identified written public health or safety standards” applicable to new housing development projects.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments would not apply to parcels located in the Hillside Overlay Zone, and include a building separation requirement of 5 feet. These policies are directly related to fire safety and disaster preparedness.

 Request: Adopt “design review standards that are part of ‘applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria.”
Response: The proposed zoning amendments include objective development standards, but do not include objective design standards. Staff had proposed establishing a floor area ratio requirement for new development, with the intention of controlling overall building bulk while providing flexibility in project siting and design, but that recommendation was not accepted by the Planning Commission or the City Council. The Planning Commission and City Council were also presented with draft standards related to facade treatments but ultimately did not recommend them. Additionally, in 2021, a joint subcommittee of Planning Commission and the Zoning Adjustments Board advanced to City Council objective standards recommendations for density, design, and shadows, which were not adopted.

 Request: Quantify and set standards for views, shadows, and other impacts that often underlie detriment findings.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments include objective height standards. These standards establish a maximum 35 foot high limit, while also limiting height to 22 feet in the rear 15 feet of a property. Both the maximum height limit of 35 feet and the lower height limit in the rear of a property were developed as a result of solar access analysis conducted as part of the middle housing zoning policy development process. Initially, staff had recommended a 28 foot average height paired with a 35 foot maximum height, in an effort to address concerns about solar access and views. Ultimately, the City Council recommended a single 35 foot maximum height standard.

Missing Middle Housing
On April 23, 2019 the City Council adopted the Missing Middle Housing Report referral.

The referral asked staff to prepare a report covering the following items:

1. Identifying where missing middle housing may be optimal.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments identified areas currently zoned R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MUR as the optimal locations for middle housing projects.

2. Allowing the possibility of existing houses/footprints/zoning envelopes to be divided into up to 4 units, potentially scaling the floor area ratio (FAR) to increase as the number of units increase on site, creating homes that are more affordable, saving and lightly modifying an older structure as part of internally dividing it into more than one unit.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments include provisions permitting the development of between one and seven units on typical 5,000 square foot parcels in the low-density residential districts.

Staff had proposed to the Planning Commission and City Council a scaling floor area ratio development standard, and a scaling lot coverage standard, that would permit more building bulk when a project included more units. Neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council accepted those proposed development standards.

3. Evaluating Berkeley’s residential areas –including Berkeley hillsides– while also considering fire and disaster preparedness service needs.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments would not apply to parcels located in the Hillside Overlay Zone, and include a building separation requirement of 5 feet. These policies are directly related to fire safety and disaster preparedness.

4. Considering design elements and form-based zoning, which addresses the appropriate form, scale and massing of buildings as they relate to one another, as a potential strategy.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments include objective development standards that permit additional development on a single parcel, while not exceeding the size of smaller multi-family residential buildings that are part of the historic fabric of Berkeley neighborhoods. Staff had proposed scaling floor area ratio and scaling lot coverage standards, both efforts to control building massing, but neither standard was recommended by the Planning Commission or City Council.

5. Creating incentives to maintain family-friendly housing stock while adding more diversity and range of smaller units.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments do not include specific unit size controls or standards that are typically used to promote “family friendly” development (2+ bedrooms). The proposed zoning amendments do include minimum and maximum density standards, which permit flexibility in providing larger units in smaller configurations, or allowing a larger number of small units.

The maximum density standard would avoid a project including a high number of very small units.

6. Creating incentives for building more than one unit on larger than average lots.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments include minimum and maximum densities based on a dwelling units per acre standard. Therefore, larger parcels would be permitted to include more units than a typical parcel. Staff had originally recommended a policy of permitting multi-unit development with a ZC, while maintaining a UP(PH) requirement for single family homes, to incentivize the development of multi-unit projects. The Planning Commission and the City Council, however, opted for permitting all residential development with a ZC.

7. Providing suggestions to:
a. protect existing housing stock, particularly affordable and rent-controlled stock

b. protect tenant and vulnerable low-income individuals c. control demolition
d. ensure no net loss provisions
Response: The City Council adopted revisions to the Demolition Ordinance that reflect new State law requirements on affordability and tenant protections, while also including Berkeley-specific requirements for affordability and tenant protections.
e. increase affordability with provisions that align with our land value recapture policy objectives.

Response: As discussed above, the proposed zoning amendments do not include any new affordable housing requirements that apply only to middle housing zoning projects. Middle housing zoning projects would still be subject to Inclusionary Zoning requirements, and any housing affordability requirements that come pursuant to the Demolition Ordinance.

8. Evaluating whether changes –or lack of changes– would a. place particular economic or gentrifying pressure on low-income neighborhoods with historic redlining or contribute to
b. Contribute to further exclusion and/or exacerbate racial and economic segregation in Berkeley.

Response: A specific evaluation of these topics was not prepared as part of the development of the proposed zoning amendments. However, the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update included detailed discussion of the city's housing needs, and policies and programs to avoid displacement and preserve additional affordable housing. For example, the Housing Element identified the middle housing zoning changes as strategies to affirmatively further fair housing by eliminating historic exclusionary zoning practices that contributed to racial and economic segregation in Berkeley. Additionally, prior to consideration of the proposed zoning amendments, the City Council adopted a revised Demolition Ordinance, which included state mandated affordable housing replacement requirements as well as tenant protections. In addition, the Demolition Ordinance includes a number of Berkeley specific provisions that provide depth of affordability and tenant protections beyond what is required under state law.

9. Evaluating methods for promoting first time home ownership of these units (e.g., Open Doors Initiative) and/or providing assistance to first time homebuyers so that the benefits of the additional housing are equitably distributed.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments do not include any new policies or programs that encourage first time home ownership of units developed in middle housing projects.

10. Incorporating green features and evaluating environmental impacts of missing middle housing.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments do not include any additional green features that are not also required of other types of residential development. The environmental impacts of the proposed zoning amendments were evaluated as part of the Housing Element Environmental Impact Report.

11. Considering historic preservation efforts and preventing impacts to designated historic resources.

Response: The Demolition Ordinance requires any proposed demolition of a historic structure, structure of merit, or structure located in an historic district to be evaluated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

12. Examining how different cities effectuated these changes (e.g. changes to their General Plan, zoning changes, etc.).

Response: As part of the preparation of the middle housing zoning changes, staff evaluated similar efforts undertaken in other jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include the cities of Oakland, Sacramento, Cambridge (MA), and other jurisdictions.

13. Evaluating the public process used in the course of considering these changes.

Response: The following community outreach activities supported the work of Planning and Development staff in the development of the Middle Housing Zoning changes. Most meetings in 2021 and 2022 were related to the Housing Element Update, which included middle housing standards as well as residential objective standards for larger buildings. Meetings conducted in 2023 and 2024 were more specifically focused on the development of middle housing standards in the low-density residential zones.

City Council Meetings and Workshops
 City Councilmember briefings, Middle Housing: August 2023  Worksession #4, Middle Housing and Southside: September 30, 2022 (16 speakers)
 Worksession #3, Residential Objective Standards: March 15, 2022 (60 attendees)

 Worksession #2, Housing Element Update: December 9, 2021 (10 speakers)
 Worksession #1, Housing Element Update: September 21, 2021 (22 speakers)
Planning Commission Meetings
 Middle Housing Public Hearing: February 7, 2024 (12 speakers)  Middle Housing Discussion: November 1, 2023 (10 speakers)  Middle Housing Discussion: June 1, 2022 (11 speakers)  Residential Objective Standards: February 16, 2022 (Planning Commission/Zoning Adjustments Board Subcommittee) (no minutes available)
 Residential Objective Standards: December 15, 2021 (Planning Commission/Zoning Adjustments Board Subcommittee) (no minutes available)
 Housing Element Update: September 1, 2021 (no speakers) Other City Commission Meetings and Briefings
 Middle Housing Briefing, Commission on Aging: July 17, 2024  Middle Housing Briefing, Housing Advisory Commission: July 11, 2024  Middle Housing Briefing, City of Berkeley Building and Safety and Berkeley Fire Department: October 17, 2023
 Housing Element, City/UC/Student Relations Committee: January 28, 2022
 Housing Element, Civic Arts Commission: January 19, 2022  Housing Element, Rent Board: November 18, 2021
 Housing Element, Housing Advisory Commission: September 30, 2021  Housing Element, Energy Commission: September 22, 2021  Housing Element, Commission on Aging: September 15, 2021  Housing Element, Zoning Adjustments Board: September 9, 2021  Housing Element, Landmarks Preservation Commission September 2, 2021
 Housing Element, Homelessness Panel of Experts: September 1, 2021  Housing Element, Commission on Disability: September 1, 2021 Community Public Workshops
 Community Workshop #3: Housing Element and Residential Objective Standards: June 29, 2022 (45 attendees)
 Community Workshop #2: Housing Element and Residential Objective Standards: January 27, 2022 (60 attendees)
 Community Workshop #1: Housing Element: October 27, 2021 (70 attendees)
Community Outreach
 City Council Districts 1 and 2, Middle Housing Information Session:

October 24, 2024

 City Council District 4, Middle Housing Information Session: October 7, 2024.
 Tabling at Community Events:
o Harvest Festival: October 19, 2024
o Roses in Bloom: May 14, 2022 (total respondents unknown) o Berkeley Bowl: April 25, 2022 (65 survey respondents) o Downtown Farmers’ Market: February 22, 2022 (total respondents unknown)
 Online Community Housing Survey: October 28th – November 14, 2021 (747 respondents)
 Self-Guided West Berkley Middle Housing Walking Tour: November 23, 2021 – January 31, 2022
 (26 after-tour survey responses; total number of tour takers unknown)  Self-Guided Downtown Berkeley Middle Housing Walking Tour: November 23, 2021 – January 31, 2022 (23 after-tour survey responses; total number of tour takers unknown)
Community Organizations Briefings
 Middle Housing Standards, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council: September 14, 2024
 Middle Housing Standards, Berkeley Design Advocates: November 1, 2023
 Middle Housing Standards, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council: October 14, 2023
 Middle Housing Standards, East Bay for Everyone: October 6, 2023  Middle Housing Standards, Architect Interviews: September 2023 Department of Planning and Development’s Housing Element Email List Selection of middle housing-related event announcements  Announcement for July 23rd City Council Public Hearing: July 18, 2024 (499 recipients; 51% opened)
 Announcement for February 7th Planning Commission Public Hearing:

January 31, 2024 (464 recipients; 64% opened)
 Announcement for November 1st Planning Commission Discussion:

October 26, 2023
 (433 recipients; 71% opened)
 Announcement for September 20, 2022 City Council Worksession on Middle Housing: September 16, 2022 (433 recipients; 71% opened)  Announcement for Community Workshop #3: June 24, 2022 (403 recipients; 62% opened)
 Announcement for City Council Worksession #3: March 10, 2022 (369 recipients; 62% opened)
 Announcements for Community Workshop #2: January 24, 2022 and January 6, 2022 (343 recipients; 65% opened)

 Announcement for Self-Guided Walking Tours: November 24, 2021 (331 recipients; 56% opened)
 Announcements for Community Survey: November 10, 2021 (314 recipients; 63% opened) and October 28, 2021 (257 recipients; 57% opened)
 Announcement for Community Workshop #1: October 14, 2021 (218 recipients; 51% opened)
Eliminating Exclusionary Zoning
On February 23, 2021 the City Council adopted a Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley. The resolution called for the following:

1. Protect public safety in all neighborhoods.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments include development standards developed through consultation with the Berkeley Fire Department. The proposed building separation requirement, for example, was included in direct response to a recommendation from the Fire Department. Additionally, the proposed zoning amendments are not applied to parcels located in the Hillside Overlay Zone. This exclusion was in response to concerns about emergency response and evacuation.

2. Allow for new housing that reflects the existing mix of multi-family housing types within neighborhoods.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments permit multi-family housing types in Berkeley’s historic low density residential districts.

3. Provide strong anti-displacement and tenant protections.

Response: The Demolition Ordinance, revised in summer 2024, reflects new State law requirements on affordability and tenant protections, while also including Berkeley-specific requirements for affordability and tenant protection.

4. Accommodate families in new and rehabilitated multi-family housing developments.

Response: The proposed zoning amendments do not include specific unit size controls or standards that would reliably result in family sized units (2+ bedrooms). The proposed zoning amendments do include minimum and maximum density standards, which permit flexibility in providing larger units in smaller configurations, or allowing a larger number of small units. The maximum

density standard would avoid a project including a high number of very small units.

5. Ensure that new development does not demolish any rent-controlled or below market-rate housing.

Response: The revised Demolition Ordinance reflects new State law requirements on affordability and tenant protections, while also including Berkeley-specific requirements for affordability and tenant protection. The Demolition Ordinance requires the replacement of any demolished rent- controlled or affordable housing.

6. Explore incentives for projects to contribute to the need for affordable housing.

Response: As discussed above, the proposed zoning amendments do not include any new affordable housing requirements that apply only to middle housing zoning projects. Middle housing zoning projects would still be subject to inclusionary zoning requirements, and any housing affordability requirements that come pursuant to the Demolition Ordinance or the utilization of State density bonus.

7. Carry out a robust community process when developing zoning changes.

Response: The staff report prepared for the July 23, 2024 City Council meeting includes a detailed description of the community process and outreach efforts undertaken in the development of the middle housing zoning changes.

Subsequent to the July 23, 2024 City Council meeting, further community outreach was undertaken, with their presentation to the Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, as well as community meetings hosted by Council members from Districts 1, 2 and 4.

Objective Standards for Density, Design and Shadows
On November 9, 2021 the City Council adopted the Objective Standards for Density, Design and Shadows referral. The referral directed staff to consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes.

The proposed zoning amendments respond to the referral’s calls to increase certainty for applicants and to reduce administrative costs and burden associated with discretionary review. Primarily this is accomplished through permitting a code compliant residential development with a ZC, a ministerial approval that is not subject to appeal, and through the development of objective development standards that are clearly stated in the zoning code, and are not subject to change with additional discretionary permits.

Attachment 7

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, Zoning Map Amendments, and
General Plan Amendments to Encourage Middle Housing
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

The Department of Planning and Development is proposing amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 23) in response to City Council referrals and the City’s 2023- 2031 Housing Element, and as recommended by the Planning Commission, which requires the City to promote “middle housing” (2-6 units) in the Single-Family Residential (R-1), Limited Two-Family Residential (R-1A), Restricted Two-Family Residential (R-2), Restricted Multiple-Family (R-2A) and Mixed-Use Residential (MU-R) zoning district. The Department is also proposing amendments to the text of the General Plan and the General Plan map that conform with the proposed zoning amendments.

Proposed zoning amendments affect the following Sections of Title 23: 23.108.020 (Zoning Districts), 23.202.020 (Allowed Land Uses), 23.202.030 (Additional Permit Requirements), 23.202.040 (Use-Specific Regulations), 23.202.050 (R-1 Single Family Residential District), 23.202.060 (R-1A Limited Two-Family Residential District),

23.202.080 (R-2 Restricted Two-Family Residential District), 23.202.090 (R-2A Restricted Multi-Family Residential District), 23.204.020 (Allowed Land Uses),

23.206.020 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements), 23.206.090 (MU-R Mixed- Use Residential District), 23.210.020 (Hillside Overlay Zone), 23.304.030 (Setbacks),

23.304.040 (Building Separation in Residential Districts), 23.322.100 (On-site Loading Spaces), 23.324.050 (Conforming and Nonconforming Structures and Buildings),

23.326.030 (Demolition and Dwelling Unit Control), 23.406.020 (Zoning Certificates), and 23.502.020 (Glossary).

Proposed amendments also affect the following Sections of Title 23, but only insofar as they are being renumbered: 23.202.100 (R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District),

23.202.110 (R-4 Multi-Family Residential District), 23.202.120 (R-5 High-Density Residential District), 23.202.130 (R-S Residential Southside District), 23.202.140 (R- SMU Residential Southside Mixed Use District), 23.202.150 (R-BMU Residential BART Mixed Use). The proposed amendments also include conforming Zoning Map amendments, and non-substantive technical corrections to ensure consistency throughout the Zoning Ordinance.

Proposed General Plan text and map amendments include renaming the Low Density Residential classification to Lower Density Residential, assigning the Medium Density Residential classification to the R-2, R-2A and R-3 zoning districts, and other text

Attachment 7
amendments that reflect the City Council’s recommendation with respect to the names of zoning districts and the proposed development standards.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c), the proposed amendments are within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared by the City of Berkeley for the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU) Project, and the Final EIR adequately describes the proposed project of the purposes of CEQA.

The hearing will be held on, Tuesday, April 29, 2025 at 6:00 pm in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of April 17, 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.

For further information, please contact Justin Horner, Principal Planner at 510-981- 7476. 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.

Published: April 18, 2025 – The Berkeley Voice
Public Hearing required by BMC 23.412.050 and Govt Code 65853; notice provided according to Govt Code 65090 and BMC 23.404.040.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on April 17, 2025.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

1900 Addison Street, 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-4950 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/dpa

INFORMATION CALENDAR
APRIL 29, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor Ishii and Members of the City Council From: Police Accountability Board
Submitted by: Hansel A. Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability (DPA) Subject: 2025 Police Accountability Board Workplan

INTRODUCTION
The Police Accountability Board (PAB) hereby submits a work plan for the year 2025.

SUMMARY
On February 1, 2025, the PAB conducted a strategic planning session at the ODPA to evaluate key priorities and establish objectives for the year. The discussion emphasized the importance of achieving full staffing, enhancing community engagement, and assessing workload efficiency to maximize effectiveness. As part of its strategic planning, the PAB identified the following objectives for 2025:
 Strengthening stakeholder engagement to achieve full staffing and enhance community participation
 Overseeing the implementation of an effective Early Intervention System (EIS)  Finalizing an updated operations manual that aligns with operational needs  Cataloging and prioritizing pending policy reviews
 Expanding the PAB’s academic network to enhance research capabilities and overall work product
 Finalizing the review of regulations for investigating personnel complaints

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The PAB holds at least 18 regular meetings each year per Berkeley City Charter Section 125(13)(a)1. Currently, 5 of the 9 Board Member positions, are filled. 2 The PAB is 1 Berkeley City Charter Section 125(13)(a): https://berkeley.municipal.codes/Charter/125(13)(a) 2 The PAB currently has six appointed members, with one Board Member on an extended leave of absence. Please refer to the attached PAB Roster for more details.

2025 Police Accountability Board Workplan INFORMATION CALENDAR APRIL 29, 2025

responsible for carrying out the duties and authority as defined in Berkeley City Charter Section 125.

BACKGROUND
The Police Accountability Board (PAB) was established to enhance public trust by providing independent civilian oversight of the Berkeley Police Department. It serves as a platform for community engagement in reviewing police policies, practices, and procedures while ensuring timely and impartial investigations of complaints against sworn officers.

In 2016, the City Council required most commissions to submit an annual work plan outlining their mission, goals, resources, activities, and expected outcomes. These plans serve as a roadmap for the fiscal year and should align with relevant departmental work plans while staying within the commission's legislative scope3.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no environmental sustainability or climate impacts associated with the adoption of this work plan.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The PAB will review the work plan annually and revise the plan as appropriate.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no fiscal impacts in accepting this work plan.

CONTACT PERSON
Hansel A. Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability
Phone: (510) 981-4950
Email: [email protected]
Attachments:
1: 2025 Police Accountability Board Workplan
2: PAB Roster
3 Berkeley Commissioner’s Manual Section E “Development of a Work Plan”:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Commissioners-Manual.pdf

1 Table of Contents
Mission Statement ................................................................................................................................................2 Guiding Authorities ..............................................................................................................................................2 Recurring Mandates..............................................................................................................................................2 Charter Powers and Duties ...............................................................................................................................2 Requirements Under the Berkeley Municipal Code .........................................................................................3 PAB Objectives for 2025......................................................................................................................................4 2025 PAB Meeting Calendar................................................................................................................................5

2 Mission Statement
“The purpose of the Police Accountability Board is to promote public trust through independent, objective, civilian oversight of the Berkeley Police Department, provide community participation in setting and reviewing Police Department policies, practices, and procedures, and to provide a means for prompt, impartial and fair investigation of complaints brought by members of the public against sworn employees of the Berkeley Police Department” (Berkeley City Charter Section 125(1)).

Guiding Authorities
The Police Accountability Board’s (PAB) work plan is guided by Berkeley City Charter Section 1251, ordinances enacted by City Council 2, the City of Berkeley’s Commissioner’s Manual 3, and the PAB’s adopted standing rules. These authorities define the PAB’s responsibilities, establish its procedural framework, and ensure alignment with city policies to promote effective civilian oversight of law enforcement.

Recurring Mandates
The Police Accountability Board has annual mandatory responsibilities outlined in the City Charter and the Berkeley Municipal Code.

Charter Powers and Duties
The mandatory provisions for the PAB in the City Charter deal with the composition and procedures of the PAB. Many of the provisions deal with the requirements of individual board members such as the training requirement or term limits. The active actions the PAB, as a whole, is required to take in the City Charter are:
 approve the annual report from the DPA as outlined in the Charter (Berkeley City Charter Section 125(16)(c));
 reviewing and making recommendations on newly adopted policies submitted by the Chief of Police (Berkeley City Charter Section 125(17)(a));
1 Berkeley City Charter Section 125: https://berkeley.municipal.codes/Charter/125 2 Currently, Berkeley Municipal Code 2.99 and 2.100 assign the PAB with additional reviews not listed in the charter: https://berkeley.municipal.codes/
3 City of Berkeley’s Commissioner’s Manual: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Commissioners- Manual.pdf

3  adopt regulations for handling complaints filed with the DPA (Berkeley City Charter Section 125(18));
 consult with the City Manager for the hiring of a new Chief of Police during a vacancy (Berkeley City Charter Section 125(22));
 receiving information on any agreed contracts adopted by the City Council related to the PAB’s work (Berkeley City Charter Section 125(25));
 creating a regular commendation program for sworn employees of the BPD (Berkeley City Charter Section 125
(26)); and
 conducting a review of its internal processes every two years (Berkeley City Charter Section 125(28)).

The City Charter also puts mandatory limits of the PAB’s power. The PAB is unable to limit the City Council, Chief of Police, or City Manager’s authority derived from other provisions of the City Charter to act on policing matters. The PAB does not have the authority to supplant the authority of the City Manager or Chief of Police.

Requirements Under the Berkeley Municipal Code
According to Chapter 2.99 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, the PAB plays a role in reviewing the city's use of surveillance technology by:
 Reviewing Surveillance Use Policy: The City Manager must present a Surveillance Use Policy and report for each new surveillance technology to the PAB before it goes to the City Council for approval. (Section 2.99.030(2))
 Providing Recommendations: The PAB can then vote to recommend approval of the policy, object to it, suggest modifications, or take no action. However, their decision is not binding, and the City Council can still proceed with adopting the policy. (Section

2.99.030(2))
The Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 2.100, titled "Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance," establishes the PAB’s role in regulating the acquisition and use of "Controlled Equipment" by the police department. Here's how the PAB is involved:

4  Review and Recommendation: Before the City Council approves the acquisition or use of any Controlled Equipment, the Police Department must submit a Controlled Equipment Impact Report and a Controlled Equipment Use Policy to the PAB for review and recommendation. (Section 2.100.040(A))
 Specific Requirements: The PAB is tasked with reviewing the proposed equipment and policy based on specific criteria, including:
o Potential impact on the community, particularly on protected groups. (Section

2.100.050(A)(2)(a))
o Whether alternative equipment or de-escalation tactics could achieve the same goal. (
Section 2.100.050(A)(2)(b))
o Consistency with the City's values and community policing principles. (Section

2.100.050(A)(2)(c))
 Recommendation Outcome: The PAB then issues a written recommendation to the City Council, which can be approval, disapproval, or suggestions for modification. However, the City Council has the final say on whether to approve the acquisition or use of the Controlled Equipment. (Section 2.100.040(A))
PAB Objectives for 2025
On February 1, 2025, the PAB held a strategic planning session at the Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA). During the retreat, the Board reviewed its key strategic goals and priorities, identifying the following objectives for 2025:

No. Objectives Charter Section
1 Achieve full PAB staffing and enhance community participation through strengthened stakeholder engagement.
125(5)(a)
2 Oversee the effective implementation of the Early Intervention System (EIS).
125(17)(a)
3 Finalize an updated operations manual that aligns with the PAB’s operational needs.
125(3)(a)(6)
4 Catalog and prioritize pending policy reviews before the PAB. 125(17)(a) 5 Expand the PAB’s academic network to strengthen research capabilities and overall work product.
125(3)(a)(1)
6 Complete the review of the PAB's regulations for investigating personnel complaints.
125(18)(a)

5 2025 PAB Meeting Calendar

PAB ROSTER
Updated 3/27/2025
District Board Member Nominated by
Mayor Vacant Mayor Ishii
D1 Vacant Councilmember Kesarwani
D2 David Williams1 Councilmember Taplin
D3 Vacant Councilmember Bartlett
D4 Calavita, Kitty Councilmember Tregub
D5 Wilson, Leah (Vice-Chair) Councilmember O’Keefe
D6 Leftwich, Juliet Councilmember Blackaby
D7 Cayetano, Joshua (Chair) Councilmember Lunaparra
D8 Randy Wells Councilmember Humbert
Alternate Vacant Mayor and Council
1 Councilmember Williams on leave of absence from March 19, 2025 to June 19, 2025

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

INFORMATION CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: Restaurant Inspections Audit Report Wins National Recognition

INTRODUCTION
The City of Berkeley Auditor’s Office has won the 2024 Distinguished Knighton Award for one of the best performance audit reports in the medium shop category from the Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA). The report, Berkeley Restaurant Inspections: Chronically Understaffed Program Did Not Meet Targets, was judged on several key elements, such as the potential for significant impact, the persuasiveness of conclusions, the focus on improving government efficiency and effectiveness, and its clarity and conciseness.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Each year, local government audit organizations from around the U.S. and Canada submit their best performance audit reports for judging. The judges from peer organizations determined that our audit of the City of Berkeley’s food inspection program was among the best of 2024.

BACKGROUND
We issued our audit report, Berkeley Restaurant Inspections: Chronically Understaffed Program Did Not Meet Targets, on July 10, 2024.
1 The purpose of the audit was to determine:

1. To what extent is the Food Safety and Inspection Program meeting its inspection targets?

2. To what extent is the Food Safety and Inspection Program adequately funded and staffed?

3. How well does the Food Safety and Inspection Program keep the public informed about food safety?
We found that the Environmental Health Division (Division) did not meet its targets for food facility inspections in 2023, increasing health risk. Almost half (45 percent) of Berkeley’s food facilities were not inspected, including 193 restaurants. Further, the Division responded to only 26 percent of potential foodborne illness complaints within the target of one business day.

1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley_Restaurant_Inspections_- _Chronically_Understaffed_Program_Did_Not_Meet_Targets.pdf

Internal

INFORMATION CALENDAR

Pg. 2 of 2

Additionally, the Division did not separately track food inspection revenue and spending from its other inspection programs over the audit period. Short staffing increased inspectors’ workloads and made it difficult to meet targets and monitor program performance. Public information on food inspections was limited and hard to access. Berkeley provided less information about inspections online compared to other jurisdictions. Berkeley did not use placards, a common practice for communicating food safety used by other jurisdictions including Alameda County.

We made nine recommendations to improve inspection coverage and quickly respond to alleged foodborne illness complaints, as well as increase transparency and accessibility. City Management agreed or partially agreed to our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Since audit issuance, the Division has made progress in implementing the audit recommendations.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with this report.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
We will continue to follow up on the status of audit recommendation implementation to ensure the City mitigates the risks that could prevent the City from providing efficient, effective, and equitable service delivery.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Audit work leads to new or enhanced revenue, cost recovery, and increased efficiency, with economic impact well beyond the audit costs. Implementing the audit recommendations from the restaurant inspections audit will ensure that the Environmental Health Division improves coverage of food inspections and can provide the public with complete and accessible information on food safety, minimizing public health risk to the community.

Staffing up the food inspection program may carry financial implications depending on the specific implementation strategies. However, filling budgeted positions is necessary to meet inspection targets. Additionally, updating the information shared online and implementing placarding may require initial investments in design and implementation. We anticipate the ongoing costs of placarding to be minimal, as placards are updated as part of the routine inspection process.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, City Auditor’s Office, 510-981-6750 Attachments:
1: 2024 Knighton Award Letter from ALGA

Association of Local Government Auditors

449 Lewis Hargett Circle, Suite 290, Lexington, KY 40503 ׀Phone: (859) 276-0686 ׀www.algaonline.org

April 4, 2025

Jenny Wong
2180 Milvia St. Third Floor
Berkeley, California
94704

RE: 2024 Knighton Award Winner

Dear Jenny,

The Association of Local Government Auditors’ Awards Program Committee is pleased to announce that the City of Berkeley, City Auditor's Office’s report, “Berkeley Restaurant Inspections: Chronically Understaffed Program Did Not Meet Targets,” won the 2024 Distinguished Knighton Award in the medium shop category.

ALGA was founded in 1985 to serve auditors who specialize in working with local governments, and our members represent over 300 local government audit organizations across the United States and Canada. As you well know, local government auditors are committed to helping their governments provide services to the public more efficiently and effectively with the limited resources available to them.

To encourage increasing levels of excellence among local government auditors, ALGA created the Knighton Award in 1995 to recognize the best performance audit reports produced by local government audit shops in the previous year. Each year, local government audit organizations, like yours, submit their best performance audit report to be evaluated against four criteria:
(1) An audit scope that has the potential for significant impact and is responsive to the needs and concerns of decision-makers and/or the public. (2) Audit conclusions that are persuasive, logical, and firmly supported by the evidence, which was gathered using appropriate research methods and tools. (3) Audit recommendations that are feasible and will make government programs more effective and efficient.
(4) Audit results that are communicated clearly and concisely.

Judges from peer organizations determined your office’s report was among the best of 2024.

The judges commented:

The report is well written, easy to follow, and digs all the way down to root causes. The comparison of the auditee’s performance to similar entities is very effective in judging the magnitude of the findings. The auditors’ use of visuals helps clearly articulate their

Association of Local Government Auditors

449 Lewis Hargett Circle, Suite 290, Lexington, KY 40503 ׀Phone: (859) 276-0686 ׀www.algaonline.org

messaging and capture readers’ attention; specifically, figure 8 highlights the extent to which inspectors are overworked.

Congratulations on receiving this award!

Sincerely,

Kathie Harrison, Annamarie McNiel,
Acting ALGA President Awards Program Committee Chair

Communications

All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

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

Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/

To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”

2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting

3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF