1951 shattuck avenue mixed-use project · the project site encompasses 0.4 acres and is located at...

1951 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Infill Environmental Checklist

prepared by

City of Berkeley Planning & Development Department Land Use Division

1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, California 94704

Contact: Leslie Mendez, Senior Planner

prepared with the assistance of

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street

Oakland, California 94612

June 2019

Table of Contents

Infill Environmental Checklist i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... i

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Project Title ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 Lead Agency Name and Address ........................................................................................... 1 3 Contact Person and Phone Number ..................................................................................... 1 4 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 1 5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ................................................................................... 1 6 General Plan Designation ...................................................................................................... 4 7 Zoning .................................................................................................................................... 4 8 Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project (including

State Clearinghouse Number) ............................................................................................... 4 9 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project .... 4 10 Description of Project ........................................................................................................... 4

Signalization of the Berkeley Way and Shattuck Avenue Intersection ................................. 9 11 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting .................................................................................... 11 12 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., Permits, Financing Approval, or

Participation Agreement) .................................................................................................... 14 Satisfaction of Appendix M Performance Standards ........................................................................... 16 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................................................... 19

Determination ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Environmental Checklist ....................................................................................................................... 21

Relationship of the Proposed Project to the Downtown Area Plan EIR Analysis ......................... 22 CEQA Guidelines Updates ............................................................................................................. 24

1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................ 25 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................ 31 3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 33

4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 43 5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 47 6 Energy ...................................................................................................................... 53 7 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................... 55 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... 59

9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................... 69 10 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................. 77 11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................ 83 12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................... 93

City of Berkeley Planning & Development Department 1951 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

ii

13 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................. 95 14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 105 15 Public Services ....................................................................................................... 107

16 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 113 17 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................... 115 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 121 19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................. 123

20 Wildfire .................................................................................................................. 129 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................... 131

References .......................................................................................................................................... 133 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 133 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................... 135

Tables Table 1 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................5

Table 2 Residential Unit Summary .....................................................................................................5

Table 3 Existing Site Characteristics ................................................................................................ 14

Table 4 Risk and Hazard Screening Data ......................................................................................... 39

Table 5 Health Risks After Recommendation AQ-1 ........................................................................ 40

Table 6 Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan and General Plan Implementation Strategies................................................................................................. 63

Table 7 Maximum Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase .............................................. 102

Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ..............................................................................................................2

Figure 2 Project Site Location ..........................................................................................................3

Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan .............................................................................................................6

Figure 4 Proposed North Elevation .................................................................................................7

Figure 5 Proposed East Elevation ....................................................................................................7

Figure 6 Proposed South Elevation..................................................................................................8

Figure 7 Proposed West Elevation ...................................................................................................8

Figure 8 Site Photos ...................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 9 Surrounding Area Photos ................................................................................................ 13

Figure 10 Eastward Views of the Berkeley Hills from the the Intersection of Berkeley Way and Shattuck Avenue ...................................................................................................... 28

Table of Contents

Infill Environmental Checklist iii

Figure 11 Project Site and Surrounding Downtown Area Plan Land Use Classifications ............... 85

Appendices Appendix A CEQA Guidelines Excerpt Appendix B Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix C Shadow Study

Appendix D Toxic Air Contaminants Analysis Appendix E Historical Resources Evaluation (State of California DPR forms 523A and 523B) Appendix F Geotechnical Study Appendix G Noise Measurements Data and Analysis

Appendix H Traffic Impact Analysis


iv

This page left intentionally blank.

Introduction

Infill Environmental Checklist 1

Introduction

This document assesses an infill project according to the procedures provided in Section 21094.5 of the Public Resources Code (PRC). The content satisfies the requirements in Section 15183.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Streamlining for Infill Projects, included in Appendix A to this report for reference.

1 Project Title 1951 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

2 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Berkeley Planning & Development Department, Land Use Division 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, California 94704

3 Contact Person and Phone Number Leslie Mendez, Senior Planner, (510) 981-7426

4 Project Location The project site encompasses 0.4 acres and is located at 1951-1975 Shattuck Avenue, 2108-2112 Berkeley Way, and 2114-2116 Berkeley Way (Assessor’s Parcel Number 57-2046-1), at the southeast corner of the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Berkeley Way, in the Downtown Area of Berkeley. The site has frontage on Shattuck Avenue and Berkeley Way and is adjacent to the University of California Press to the east and a commercial building to the south. The Downtown Berkeley Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station is two blocks south of the project site (approximately 1,000 feet). The site is also accessible from several bus lines operated by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit); these, include lines 7, 18, 52, 51B, 52, 79, 88, 604, 605, 800, F, and FS. Shuttle buses that serve University of California, Berkeley (UCB) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) make stops within 0.2 mile of the project site. Local access to the project site is available from Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley Way, University Avenue, Hearst Avenue, and Oxford Street. Interstate 80 (I-80), California State Route (SR) 13 (SR 13), SR 123 (San Pablo Avenue), and SR 24 provide regional vehicular access. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site, and Figure 2 shows the project site’s immediate location and selected nearby land uses.

5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address Steve Buster Grosvenor Americas 1 California Street, Suite 2500 San Francisco, California 94111


2

Figure 1 Regional Location

Introduction


Figure 2 Project Site Location


4

6 General Plan Designation General Plan: Downtown Downtown Area Plan (DAP): Outer Core Area

7 Zoning Downtown Mixed Use District (C-DMU), Outer Core Sub-Area

8 Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project (including State Clearinghouse Number)

Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Berkeley Downtown Area Plan, April 2009, State Clearinghouse Number 2008102032

9 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project

City of Berkeley Planning & Development Department Land Use Division 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, California 94704

10 Description of Project

Project Overview and Design The proposed 1951 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project is a 179,780 square foot residential and ground-floor retail mixed-use development in downtown Berkeley. The project would involve the demolition of two existing, on-site commercial structures and the construction of a 12-story mixed-use building, with 5,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor and 156 residential units on the second to twelfth floors. The proposed project would also include a subterranean parking garage with 100 parking spaces in car stackers.

The building would be 120 feet tall, excluding rooftop architectural projections that would extend up to approximately 140 feet. The project would include 12,480 square feet of usable open space, in the form of terraces and balconies. Both the second floor terrace and roof deck would include outdoor kitchens, lounge seating, fire pits, and landscaping. The roof deck would include a synthetic turf dog run area. Table 1 summarizes the basic project components.

Introduction


Table 1 Project Summary Use Gross Floor Area (square feet) Units

Residential 153,555 156

Retail 5,000 n/a

Parking 17,425 100 auto, 80 indoor bike, 10 outdoor bike

Maximum Building Height: 12 stories; 120 feet (excluding architectural projections)1

1 Top of mechanical would be at 139’ -1”

The project includes ground-floor retail space that would be available for lease along the west frontage of the project site along Shattuck Avenue. The ground-floor would feature a lobby, a leasing office, and bike storage.

The 156 proposed residential units on floors two through twelve would include 22 studio units (with an average size of 460 square feet), 70 one-bedroom units (with an average size of 560 square feet), 28 junior two-bedroom units (with an average size of 620 square feet), 59 two-bedroom units (with an average size of 980 square feet), and five three-bedroom units (with an average size of 1,230 square feet). Table 2 shows the proposed unit count. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan and Figure 4 through Figure 7 show the conceptual building elevations. As the project would provide residential units available to rent, it is subject to the City’s Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance (Section 22.20.3065 of the Berkeley Municipal Code [BMC]).

Table 2 Residential Unit Summary

Floor Unit

per Floor Studios 1

Bedroom Jr 2

Bedroom 2

Bedroom 3

Bedroom

Two 10 1 4 3 2 –

Three 16 3 7 3 3 –

Four 16 3 7 3 3 –

Five 16 3 7 3 3 –

Six 16 3 7 3 3 –

Seven 16 3 7 3 3 –

Eight 14 2 7 2 2 1

Nine 13 1 6 2 3 1

Ten 13 1 6 2 3 1

Eleven 13 1 6 2 3 1

Twelve 13 1 6 2 2 1

Total 156 22 70 28 31 5


6

Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan

Introduction


Figure 4 Proposed North Elevation

Figure 5 Proposed East Elevation


8

Figure 6 Proposed South Elevation

Figure 7 Proposed West Elevation

Introduction


Signalization of the Berkeley Way and Shattuck Avenue Intersection The project would install a traffic signal and implement other sidewalk and crosswalk improvements at the intersection of Berkeley Way and Shattuck Avenue to improve pedestrian safety, as the existing volume of pedestrian crossings meets the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) minimum pedestrian volume warrant. Intersection improvements and installation of signal poles would be completed simultaneously with construction of the proposed project.

The pedestrian improvements at the intersection would include two new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant ramps on the southeast corner of the intersection at the project site and would replace the non-compliant ramps at the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection. The signalization would also likely include poles with safety lighting at each corner of the intersection.

Access, Parking, Circulation and Transportation Demand Management The project would include a 100-space subterranean parking garage for residents. All of the automobile parking spaces (except for the ADA spaces) would be located in mechanized lift systems. An indoor bike storage area on the ground floor with space for 80 bikes and 7 outdoor bike racks along Shattuck Avenue would be installed. Vehicle access would occur via driveway on Berkeley Way, on the site’s east side frontage. Pedestrian access to the proposed building, including for residential and ground-floor retail areas, would be primarily on the northwest corner of the project, fronting the sidewalks on Berkeley Way and Shattuck Avenue.

Landscaping The project would include various landscaping elements. Three existing street trees would remain along Shattuck Avenue and two new street trees are proposed on Berkeley Way. Planters would be installed on the second-floor terrace and on the roof.

Sustainable Building Features The project would be designed to achieve a GreenPoint Silver rating certification, equivalent to LEED Gold (as required by BMC 23E.68.085.A), and would meet the California Green Building Standards Code requirements for new development. The project’s sustainability features would include the following:

Exceedance of Title 24 energy efficiency standards Environmentally preferable flooring ENERGY STAR dishwashers and refrigerators Low-flow showerheads, faucets, and toilets High-efficiency irrigation system Separate mechanical and plumbing systems 75 percent construction and demolition waste diversion Non-leaching roof materials Zero-volatile organic compound (VOC) interior wall and ceiling paints


10

Site Preparation and Construction The two existing on-site buildings would be demolished. Construction of the project, including demolition of the existing buildings, would last an estimated 24 months. Approximately 14,8000 cubic yards of material would be excavated and transported from the site for the proposed building’s subterranean parking garage. The maximum depth of excavation is anticipated to be 23 feet below ground surface (bgs).

The project would include utility connections for water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, power, and telecommunications services in accordance with requirements of applicable utility providers. These utilities would connect to existing infrastructure near the site. Pacific Gas & Electric would provide electrical and natural gas services; East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) would provide water and wastewater service; the City of Berkeley would provide stormwater, wastewater, and solid waste services. The project would rely on existing public services, including but not limited to, City of Berkeley police and fire protection, Berkeley Unified School District for schools, and parks and open spaces provided by the City of Berkeley, East Bay Regional Parks District, the County of Alameda, and the State of California.

Requested Entitlements The project is subject to approval by the City of Berkeley’s Zoning Adjustments Board, the decision of which would be appealable to the City Council. The project would require the following discretionary entitlements from the City of Berkeley:

Use Permit for demolition of non-residential buildings Use Permit for construction of a new main building with mixed-use development Use Permit for construction of >10,000 square foot. gross floor area Use Permit to allow one of two buildings over 75 feet but not more than 120 feet in the

combined Core and Outer Core areas Use Permit to reduce the required 5-foot rear yard setback for the portion of the building

between 21 and 75 feet in height, under BMC Section 23E.68.070.C Use Permit to reduce the required 15-foot rear yard setback for the portion of the building

above 75 feet in height, under BMC Section 23E.68.070.C; Use Permit to reduce the required 15-foot front yard setback for the portion of the building

above 75 feet in height, under BMC Section 23E.68.070.C; Use Permit to reduce the required 5-foot side lot line setback for the portion of the building

between 21 and 75 feet in height, under BMC Section 23E.68.070.C Use Permit to reduce the required 5-foot side lot line setback for the portion of the building

above 75 feet in height, under BMC Section 23E.68.070.C; Use Permit to reduce the required 15-foot side lot line setback for the portion of the building

above 75 feet in height, under BMC Section 23E.68.070.C Administrative Use Permit construct mechanical penthouses, elevator equipment rooms, and

other architectural elements to exceed the height limit, under BMC Section 23E.04.020.C Administrative Use Permit to allow required Privately-Owned Public Open Space to be paid via

an in lieu fee, under BMC Section 23E.68.070.D

Introduction


11 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is part of a fully urbanized block in downtown Berkeley. The site has two existing buildings. The Schlueter Building, on the northwest corner of the project site, is an L-shaped, single-story, multi-tenant, commercial building made of reinforced concrete with seven commercial businesses (Smart Mart, the Cutaway, Elite Exchange, Copy Central, Artistic Expert Picture Framing, Berkeley Vacuum Center, and Blow Salon). The Bay Properties Office Building occupies the southeast corner of the project and is, a two-story building used as a church. A pedestrian alley separates the two buildings. The site slopes down towards the west such that the west side of the project side is approximately five feet and ten inches lower than the east side.

Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively, show photographs of the existing site and its surroundings, and Table 3 summarizes the existing characteristics of the project site and surroundings.

The project site is in the “Outer Core” sub-area of the Commercial-Downtown Mixed-Use (C-DMU) zone in downtown Berkeley. It is surrounded by commercial, public, and institutional land uses. The DAP describes the Outer Core as “mixed-use areas within a quarter mile of BART, giving it good proximity to transit and conveniences” (City of Berkeley 2012a).

Surrounding land uses include the eight-story UCB Department of Public Health building on the northeast corner of Shattuck Avenue and Berkeley Way to the north, the University of California Press building and an apartment building to the east, and retail commercial development to the south and west, including the approved Acheson Commons project. This development involves 202 new dwelling units, three live/work units, and rehabilitation of existing commercial space with a maximum building height up to 75 feet tall (six stories).

A range of public and educational/institutional uses occur within three blocks of the project site, including the UCB campus, UCB Extension campus, UCB Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, Downtown Berkeley BART Station, and Berkeley City College. Commercial uses are located along Berkeley Way and Shattuck Avenue around the project site. Several bus stops serving a number of bus lines are within one block of the project site on Shattuck Avenue, and University Avenue.


12

Figure 8 Site Photos

Introduction


Figure 9 Surrounding Area Photos


14

Table 3 Existing Site Characteristics Address: 1951 Shattuck Avenue

Assessor’s Parcel Number: 57-2046-1

Site Size: 17,497 square feet (0.4 acre)

General and Specific Plan Land Use Designation:

Downtown (DT), DAP Outer Core Sub-Area

Zoning Designation: Downtown Mixed Use District (C-DMU), Outer Core Sub-Area

Current Use and Development: One- to two story commercial buildings

Surrounding General and Specific Plan Land Use Designations:

Downtown and Avenue Commercial, DAP “Outer Core,” “Core Area,” and “Corridor”

Surrounding Zoning Designations: C-DMU – Outer Core and C-DMU Corridor

Regional Access: Local Access:

I-80/580, SR 24, SR 123, SR 13 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley Way, University Avenue, Oxford Street

Public Services: Water: EBMUD Wastewater: EBMUD, City of Berkeley Solid Waste: City of Berkeley Fire Protection: City of Berkeley Fire Department Police Protection: City of Berkeley Police Department School District: Berkeley Unified, Central Zone

Building heights in the vicinity range from one story (commercial building at 1956 Shattuck Avenue across Shattuck Avenue to the west) to eight stories (UCB Public Health Building). Most buildings around the project site are in the two- to five-story range. There are three approved but not yet constructed buildings approximately 180-foot tall (2211 Harold Way, 2129 Shattuck Avenue and 2190 Shattuck Avenue); two existing buildings of similar height (the 180-foot First Savings/Great Western Building at 2150 Shattuck Avenue and the approximately 160-foot Wells Fargo Building at 2140 Shattuck Avenue) are within several blocks south of the project site in the DAP’s Downtown Core subarea.

12 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., Permits, Financing Approval, or Participation Agreement)

No other public agency approvals will be required for this project.

Introduction


This page intentionally left blank.


16

Satisfaction of Appendix M Performance Standards

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3 allows lead agencies to streamline the environmental review process for eligible infill projects by removing analysis of the following types of environmental effects from the CEQA document:

1. If an effect was addressed as a significant effect in a prior EIR for a planning level decision (such as the DAP), then, with some exceptions, that effect need not be analyzed again for an individual infill project, even when that effect was not reduced to a less than significant level in the prior EIR.

2. An effect need not be analyzed, even if it was not analyzed in a prior EIR or is more significant than previously analyzed, if the lead agency makes a finding that uniformly applicable development policies or standards, adopted by the lead agency or a city or county, apply to the infill project and would substantially mitigate that effect.

Appendix A provides a copy of Section 15183.3.

To be eligible for streamlined review under Section 15183.3, a project must meet the performance standards contained in Appendix M of the CEQA Guidelines. The following discussion provides information demonstrating that the infill project satisfies these standards for the following numbered paragraphs.

1. Does the non-residential infill project include a renewable energy feature? If so, describe below. If not, explain below why it is not feasible to do so.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix M, “where a project includes some combination of residential, commercial and retail, office building, transit station, and/or schools, the performance standards in this Section that apply to the predominant use shall govern the entire project.” The proposed project would be mostly residential and would be subject to the residential performance standards in Appendix M. Therefore, this non-residential standard does not apply.

2. If the project site is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, either provide documentation of remediation or describe the recommendations provided in a preliminary endangerment assessment or comparable document that will be implemented as part of the project.

The project site is not located on a known hazardous or contaminated site (Appendix B). The nearest site of this type is the California Department of Health Services Laboratory Facility, approximately 350 feet east along Berkeley Way; it has been closed since 1997 (SWRCB 2018).

Satisfaction of Appendix M Performance Standards


3. If the infill project includes residential units located within 500 feet, or such distance that the local agency or local air district has determined is appropriate based on local conditions, of a high volume roadway or other significant source of air pollution, as defined in Appendix M, describe the measures that the project will implement to protect public health. Such measures may include policies and standards identified in the local general plan, specific plans, zoning code or community risk reduction plan, or measures recommended in a health risk assessment, to promote the protection of public health. Identify the policies or standards, or refer to the site-specific analysis, below. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)

The project would not include residential units located within 500 feet, or a distance the local agency or local air district has determined is appropriate based on local conditions, of a high-volume roadway or other significant source of air pollution. High-volume roadways are freeways, highways, or urban roads with traffic volumes of at least 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. I-80 is the nearest roadway that meets this description, and it is approximately two miles west of the project site.

4. For residential projects, the project satisfies which of the following?

Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.)

Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.)

The project site is located within two blocks of one entrance to the Downtown Berkeley BART Station at the southwest corner of Shattuck Avenue and Addison Way. The site is located within three blocks of the Station main entrance at the southwest corner of Shattuck Avenue and Center Street; the main entrance is illustrated in the map excerpt below.

Consists of 300 or fewer units that are each affordable to low-income households. (Attach

evidence of legal commitment to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly housing costs, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.)


18

5. For commercial projects with a single building floor-plate below 50,000 square feet, the project satisfies which of the following?

[Not Applicable]


The project is within one-half mile of 1800 dwelling units. (Attach map illustrating proximity to households.)

6. For office building projects, the project satisfies which of the following?

[Not Applicable]


Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or within 0.25 mile of a stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.)

7. For school projects, the project does all of the following:

[Not Applicable]

The project complies with the requirements in Sections 17213, 17213.1 and 17213.2 of the California Education Code.

The project is an elementary school and is within one mile of 50% of the student population, or is a middle school or high school and is within two miles of 50% of the student population. Alternatively, the school is within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map and methodology.)

The project provides parking and storage for bicycles and scooters.

8. For small walkable community projects, the project must be a residential project that has a density of at least eight units to the acre or a commercial project with a floor area ratio of at least 0.5, or both.

[Not Applicable]

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected


Environmental Factors Potentially Affected This infill project would not result in any impacts deemed “Significant” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and Forestry Resources

□ 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

□ Mineral Resources

□ Noise □ Population and Housing

□ Public Services

□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources

□ Utilities and Service Systems

□ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance

Determination Based on this initial evaluation:

■ I find that the proposed infill project WOULD NOT have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21094.5, CEQA does not apply to such effects. A Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed.

□ I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, I find that such effects WOULD NOT be significant and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared

□ I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that although those effects could be significant, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the infill project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared.


20

□ I find that the proposed infill project would have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that those effects WOULD be significant, and an infill ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA.

Signature Date

Printed Name Title

Environmental Checklist



As described below and reflected in the organization and content of the checklist, this Infill Environmental Checklist is different from the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines Checklist commonly used for CEQA Initial Studies. This Infill Environmental Checklist is based on Appendix N CEQA Guidelines Infill Environmental Checklist form. The Appendix N Infill Environmental Checklist form and this Infill Environmental Checklist are intended to document a qualifying infill project’s eligibility for streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3 and to assist in making the determinations required by Section 15183.3, including whether the infill project’s effects have been addressed in a planning level decision or by uniformly applicable development policies.

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. For the purposes of this checklist, “prior EIR” means the environmental impact report certified for a planning level decision, as supplemented by any subsequent or supplemental environmental impact reports, negative declarations, or addenda to those documents. “Planning level decision” means the enactment or amendment of a general plan, community plan, specific plan, or zoning code. (Section 15183.3(e).)

4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur as a result of an infill project, then the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact has already been analyzed in a prior EIR. If the effect of the infill project is not more significant than what has already been analyzed, that effect of the infill project is not subject to CEQA. The brief explanation accompanying this determination should include page and section references to the portions of the prior EIR containing the analysis of that effect. The brief explanation shall also indicate whether the prior EIR included any mitigation measures to substantially lessen that effect and whether those measures have been incorporated into the infill project.

5. If the infill project would cause a significant adverse effect that either is specific to the project or project site and was not analyzed in a prior EIR, or is more significant than what was analyzed in a prior EIR, the lead agency must determine whether uniformly applicable development policies or standards that have been adopted by the lead agency, or city or county, would substantially mitigate that effect. If so, the checklist shall explain how the infill project’s implementation of the uniformly applicable development policies will substantially mitigate that effect. That effect of the infill project is not subject to CEQA if the lead agency makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that effect.


22

6. If all effects of an infill project were either analyzed in a prior EIR or are substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies or standards, CEQA does not apply to the project, and the lead agency shall file a Notice of Determination.

7. Effects of an infill project that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or that uniformly applicable development policies or standards do not substantially mitigate, are subject to CEQA. With respect to those effects of the infill project that are subject to CEQA, the checklist shall indicate whether those effects are significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. If there are one or more “Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an infill EIR is required. The infill EIR should be limited to analysis of those effects determined to be significant. (Sections 15128, 15183.3(d).)

8. “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures will reduce an effect of an infill project that is subject to CEQA from “Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how those measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. If the effects of an infill project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the lead agency may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If all of the effects of the infill project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant, the lead agency may prepare a Negative Declaration.

9. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats. However, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to an infill project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

10. The explanation of each issue should identify the following:

a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance

Relationship of the Proposed Project to the Downtown Area Plan EIR Analysis As required by CEQA, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse Number: 2008102032, which analyzed the environmental impacts of the DAP (DAP). The City Council certified the DAP EIR as meeting the requirements of CEQA on March 20, 2012 by adopting Resolution 65647 – N. S. On March 20, 2012, the Berkeley City Council adopted the 2012 DAP through Resolution 65648 – N. S. The following written checklist follows the same general chapter organization the DAP EIR used, except it includes the Tribal Cultural Resources category as required by California Assembly Bill (AB) 52 of 2014. Section 17 of this Infill Environmental Checklist, Tribal Cultural Resources, addresses this topic.

The following checklist of “environmental factors potentially affected” should be viewed in the context of the DAP EIR, which “constitutes and is designated as a ‘program environmental impact report’ for purposes of PRC Section 21090(a). Any new projects (such as private or public development activities) that might occur within the Downtown Area following adoption of the DAP will be subject to subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA” (City of Berkeley 2012a), pg. 1-5). Such review will determine the following:



Whether the project is exempt from further review If the activity is adequately covered by this EIR, so that no further CEQA review is needed

This report presents the written checklist with the specific portions of the DAP EIR that contains the analysis of the project's potential significant effects, including page and section references. For this reason, this analysis begins with reference to the project description in the DAP EIR to demonstrate that the project is generally included in the overall plan area buildout described in the project description for the DAP EIR. It should also be noted that all applicable mitigation measures from the DAP EIR have either been incorporated into the project or would be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and, if the project is approved, the Conditions of Approval.

DAP EIR Project Description The Project Description for the DAP EIR contains several references to the type of development proposed and the possible locations. For example, under New Buildings in Section 3, Project Description, in the Outer Core Area, four non-University buildings with ground-floor commercial space and upper stories with residential units and/or office space up to 120 feet tall on parcels exceeding 13,000 square feet were assumed in specific locations for the purposes of the DAP EIR analysis; these included the northwest corner of Shattuck Avenue and University Avenue, located 200 feet southwest of the project site, is the closest of these assumed locations to the project site. However, this type of building is not restricted to the sites analyzed in the DAP EIR. The project site is labeled on Figure 3.6, EIR Building Height Assumptions, as in the Outer Core area, in which buildings are generally allowed up to 85 feet, but in which four buildings may be up to 120 feet tall. In addition, the project site is identified as an Opportunity Site on Figure 3.5, Downtown Area Opportunity Sites, of the DAP EIR.

The 120-foot residential and commercial mixed-use development that the project proposes would fall within the overall buildout assumptions for the Outer Core Area, as it is designated for mixed-use developments within a 0.25-mile of the BART Downtown Station and allows for buildings up to 120 feet tall.

The DAP EIR describes the Downtown Area as largely developed in a mix of urban land uses. Implementation of the DAP would be expected to replace some existing uses and buildings to add new residential units, office space, and commercial services in support of those living and working in the Downtown Area. However, implementation of the DAP would not introduce new land uses that would conflict with existing land uses in the Downtown Area. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the land uses the DAP EIR analyzed.

The level of residential and non-residential development assumed for the DAP EIR evaluation is greater than the level of development that has actually taken place in the Downtown Area since plan adoption, making the DAP EIR a conservative analysis. As the extent of future development under the DAP was unknown, the DAP EIR followed certain assumptions for future private development in the Downtown Area, and the proposed project’s use, scale, and density are consistent with these assumptions.


24

CEQA Guidelines Updates The state of California updated CEQA Guidelines effective December 2018, but, because this particular document involves streamlining from the City of Berkeley DAP EIR, which was certified in 2012 prior to these changes to the CEQA Guidelines, the City has elected to forego using the updated CEQA Guidelines. The Appendix G checklist questions that form the basis for this analysis are generally similar to those in the Appendix G checklist in the updated CEQA Guidelines, but responses to new impact questions in the updated guidelines have been added to this analysis or incorporated into individual environmental impact sections as appropriate. Specifically, impacts related to energy are discussed in Section 6, Energy, and impacts related to wildfire are analyzed in Section 20, Wildfire.

The updated CEQA Guidelines and Senate Bill (SB) 743 changed the criteria for determining what constitutes a significant transportation-related environmental impact based upon quantification of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of level of service. Section 15064.3(c) states the requirement to use the VMT criteria only applies on and after July 1, 2020. Although a lead agency may elect to apply the criteria in Section 15064.3(b) sooner, the City of Berkeley has not adopted these criteria as of the date of this report. Nonetheless, a discussion of VMT is included in the analysis for checklist questions (a) and (b) in Section 17, Transportation/Traffic.

Environmental Checklist Aesthetics


1 Aesthetics

Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant or

Less than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

No Impact

Analyzed in the

Prior EIR

Substantially Mitigated by

Uniformly Applicable

Development Policies

Would the project have any of the following impacts?

a. Substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista □ ■ □ ■ □

b. Substantial damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway □ ■ □ ■ □

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings □ ■ □ ■ □

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area □ ■ □ ■ □

Pursuant to California state law (SB 743, 2013), aesthetic impacts of a residential, mixed-use, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area (to the extent they are not also historic resource impacts) such as those introduced by the proposed project, may not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Although all aesthetic impacts would therefore be less than significant by statute, a discussion of the project’s aesthetic effects follows for informational purposes. It should also be noted that, pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21099.d, in this context “aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.”

Downtown Area Plan EIR Summary The 2009 DAP EIR analyzes aesthetics in pages 4-1 through 4-35. It reviews the potential for development accommodated by the DAP to result in adverse effects on scenic vistas, light or glare, and day or night views, that would degrade the visual character of the city or specific neighborhoods; damage scenic resources including historic buildings; increase shading on parks, open space, or schoolyards; and add to winds that exceed 36 miles per hour for more than one hour.


26

The Aesthetics section of the DAP EIR includes discussion of scenic vistas in and through downtown Berkeley. According to the DAP EIR, in addition to the scenic vistas identified in the 1994 Downtown Design Guidelines, “some more distant scenic vistas have iconic status in the history of Berkeley, such as views from the campus over Downtown to the Golden Gate Bridge and Bay, or views from the Campanile on campus through Downtown towards the Bay.” (City of Berkeley 2012a). The DAP EIR concludes the 3,100 new dwelling units and the 1,000,000 square feet of non-residential space that could be accommodated by the approved plan would result in unavoidable significant aesthetic impacts on views from downtown Berkeley toward the Berkeley Hills through the introduction of tall, dense structures. The DAP EIR requires site-specific visual analysis for structures proposed between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street, but concludes that impacts to scenic vistas would remain unavoidable:

Impact AES-l: DAP-Related Reduction in Views of the Berkeley Hills from the Downtown Area. Development anticipated under DAP would result in a reduction in the existing views of the Berkeley Hills available to observers traveling east along east-west streets in the Downtown Area (e.g., University Avenue, Center Street and Allston Way). This would represent a potentially significant impact. Mitigation AES-l: Conduct Site-Specific Visual Analysis for Buildings Proposed Between

Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street. In order to reduce development-related impacts on existing views of the Berkeley Hills for observers traveling east along east-west streets in the Downtown Area, the City should require site-specific visual analysis for proposed buildings that have the potential to affect existing view corridors to determine the extent to which such structures may interfere with existing views of the Berkeley Hills, and should consider whether stepping back such buildings is feasible and would result in a substantial reduction in impact.

While the measures incorporated in the DAP and the additional recommended mitigation measures could reduce potential adverse impacts related to views of the Berkeley Hills from the Downtown Area, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

A second aesthetic impact identified in the DAP EIR involves the potential for shadowing the West Crescent open space at the western entrance to the UCB campus. The EIR requires that shadow effects be analyzed for structures proposed to reach 85 feet or taller near the eastern edge of downtown. Depending on the ability to modify the envelopes of such structures that would cast shadows on the Crescent, the impact may remain unavoidable.

Impact AES-2: DAP-Related Shadows Falling onto University “Crescent.” Shadow modeling indicates that development anticipated under the DAP would be expected to add new shadows that would fall on the "crescent" open space on the western edge of the University of California campus (between Addison Street and University Avenue) in the late afternoons/early evenings during fall and winter. This would represent a potentially significant impact. Mitigation AES-2: Evaluate Shadow Effects for Proposed Structures near the Eastern Edge

of the Downtown Area. The extent of the impact on the Crescent will depend on the location, height and bulk of structures to the southwest. While the impact may be significant, it is not possible to determine with any certainty the level of impact. Accordingly, all structures with a proposed height of 85 feet or more to be located in an area bounded by Addison Street on the north, Oxford Street on the east, Allston Way on the south, and Shattuck Avenue/Shattuck Square on the west shall be evaluated in a site-specific basis to determine the extent to which such buildings may cast shadows in the



Crescent. Modifications to building heights, bulk or location should be considered as a way to reduce such shadowing.

If the locations, heights and bulk of new structures in the immediate vicinity of the Crescent can be modified to effectively reduce afternoon shadowing in the area during the fall and winter (as demonstrated by project-specific shadow analysis under Mitigation AES-2, above), the impact could be reduced to a level of less than significant. However, absent such modifications for this purpose, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

The DAP EIR determined impacts to scenic resources to be less than significant. The EIR states “there are no scenic resources that meet the narrow definition of scenic resources typically used in CEQA Guidelines…It is the ‘main street’ character of the Downtown Area characterized by zero lot line buildings (no setbacks), retail frontages, and the relatively large number of buildings from earlier eras that establish its visual character” (City of Berkeley 2012a) The DAP EIR concludes that aesthetic impacts to the visual resources associated with historic buildings and street trees would be less than significant through implementation of DAP policies including those calling for preservation of important historic buildings and street trees.

Concerning light and glare impacts, the DAP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant through implementation of DAP policies intended to reduce glare and night lighting.

Project-Specific Impacts a) The project site is one block from an important vista identified in the 2012 Downtown Design Guidelines, the portion of Shattuck Avenue that terminates at University Avenue (City of Berkeley 2012b). Although the Downtown Design Guidelines do not specify which scenic view is available from this portion of Shattuck Avenue south of the project site, some views of the UCB campus and Berkeley Hills occur looking east from the site. Views of the San Francisco Bay to the west are mostly blocked by intervening structures. Because the project site is north of the area of Shattuck Avenue identified as a scenic vista and because views towards the hills from this intersection are obstructed by existing structures, the proposed project would not block scenic views of the campus and Berkeley Hills to the east. Views toward the hills through/over the project site from Berkeley Way and Milvia Street are similarly blocked by structures under existing conditions. As the project is proposed between Shattuck University and Oxford Street, it is subject to DAP EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1. A site-specific visual simulation of the view east toward the Berkeley Hills along with approved projects on parcels adjacent to the project site is presented as Figure 10 and described further under criterion (c). Figure 10 shows that the project would not further obstruct views toward the Berkeley Hills, and would therefore have a less than significant impact on designated scenic vistas.

b) The project site is developed with two on-site commercial structures connected by a pedestrian alley; no scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, are located on the site. Three street trees along the project’s Shattuck Avenue frontage would remain; two additional street trees would be placed along the Berkeley Way right-of-way. Furthermore, the project site is not visible from a State-designated scenic highway as no such highways exist in the Downtown Area. The DAP EIR notes that groups of buildings from earlier eras in the Downtown Area establish visual character in the vicinity of the project site, and that “this built environment…would be regarded as scenic resources by local residents and visitors.” Because the project would not physically alter the built environment around the project site, it would


28

Figure 10 Eastward Views of the Berkeley Hills from the the Intersection of Berkeley Way and Shattuck Avenue



not damage buildings or features considered scenic resources. The project would have a less than significant impact on scenic resources.

c) The project would alter the visual character of the site and its vicinity through the demolition of the existing one‐ and two‐story buildings on site and construction of a new 12‐story building. This would change the visual character of development by substantially increasing the mass and scale of development on the site. As shown in photos 1 and 2 in Figure 8, the existing one‐story building features several commercial canopies along Shattuck Avenue and Berkeley Way. The two‐story building is behind the one‐story building and only visible from street level by looking down the commercial alley from Berkeley Way. The existing visual character and quality of the site is moderate. As a whole, the project would generally conform to the Downtown Design Guidelines developed to promote aesthetic quality in new projects and provide continuity and harmony between old and new developments in the built environment (City of Berkeley 2012b). Although larger in height and mass than the existing buildings on the site and the block, the new building would be within the range of building heights and scales analyzed for the area in the DAP EIR, and the design and materials would compare favorably to those of the existing buildings. The project would accentuate support forms with different materials and color to mediate the taller building mass. The upper floor balconies and the curved elements form design features that also interrupt the relatively flat exterior of the tall building, adding visual character. The overall project design accounts for linear accents in adjacent new developments that have already been approved so that the project will be different from but consistent with the overall design context for the neighborhood. Furthermore, two approved construction projects (Acheson Commons and the UC Press Building addition) would increase the height and massing of buildings immediately abutting the project site. Thus, the project would be consistent visually with these approved developments. The project would include two new street trees along the Berkeley Way right‐of‐way and the installation of a traffic signal, both of which would be visually consistent with Downtown Area street landscaping and intersections. Therefore, even though the project would alter the visual character, it would not have an adverse effect on the visual character or quality of the Downtown Area. This impact would be less than significant.

d) The project site is in an urbanized area with relatively high levels of existing lighting. Exterior and interior lighting at the adjacent properties and streetlights on Shattuck Avenue, generate light and glare along all sides of the property. The project would introduce new sources of interior lighting. However, these sources of light would be similar to existing sources of lighting on the site and its surroundings and would be consistent with other uses in the area. In addition, electrical designs would be required to be compliant with California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) and Title 24 Codes. CalGreen Section 5.106.8 regulates light pollution by establishing maximum Backlight, Uplight, and Glare ratings for light fixtures. Lighting impacts would be less than significant.

DAP Policy ES‐3.15 directs new structures in the Downtown Area be designed and located in a manner that minimizes shading on public open spaces. The project would introduce a building with larger massing than those currently on the site, resulting in increased shading. However, no public open spaces sensitive to shadow effects are in the block or block faces fronting the project. Ohlone Park lies one block north and two blocks west of the project site. The West Crescent open space at the western entrance to the UCB campus is one block east and one block south of the project site. Ohlone Park would not be shaded by the project. Although the project is outside the area required to prepare site‐specific shadow studies by DAP EIR Mitigation Measure AES‐2, a shadow study was prepared for the project and is provided in Appendix C. The study indicates the project may shade the northernmost portion of the West Crescent in the late afternoon and early evenings in mid‐


30

summer, but the majority of the West Crescent that would be shaded by the project is a mulch/dirt area where trees are planted, rather than a lawn area conducive to recreation use. Due to the limited times the project would shade this area and the limited space that would be affected, shading impacts to the West Crescent would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect public open spaces with shading. Shading impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion The DAP EIR anticipated development in the Downtown Area could lead to significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to scenic views, resulting in a significant and unavoidable plan‐level impact. The project‐specific impacts related to aesthetics would not be more severe than those identified in the DAP EIR, and the project would not result in new specific effects not addressed in that analysis. No new mitigation measures are warranted. This issue does not require further study in an EIR.

Environmental Checklist Agriculture and Forestry Resources


2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Significant

Impact




No Impact

Analyzed in the

Prior EIR




In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

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

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ ■ ■ □

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


32

Significant

Impact




No Impact

Analyzed in the

Prior EIR




d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ ■ ■ □

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

Downtown Area Plan EIR Summary The DAP EIR discusses agricultural resources impacts on pages 4-36 and 4-37. That report states “the Downtown Area is a highly urbanized area within Berkeley. No portion of the Downtown Area has been in active agricultural use for many years, and no parcels in the area have been identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No land within the Downtown Area is currently under a Williamson Act contract, or zoned for agricultural use.” The DAP EIR concluded there would be no DAP-related impacts to agricultural resources, and no mitigation measures were required or identified.

Project-Specific Impacts a – d) The project site and vicinity are located in an urban area in the city of Berkeley. There are no agricultural resources, Williamson Act-contracted land, or forest land located on or near the project site. The California Department of Conservation classifies the site and all surrounding properties classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” (2016). The project would not convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The site’s urban zoning designation would not change. The project would have no impact on agriculture or forestry resources.

Conclusion The project would have no impact on agriculture or forestry resources, the same as those identified in the DAP EIR for the plan as a whole. The project would not result, therefore, in new specific effects not addressed in the prior EIR, and no new mitigation measures are warranted. This issue does not require further study in an EIR.

Environmental Checklist Air Quality


3 Air Quality

Significant

Impact




No Impact

Analyzed in the

Prior EIR




Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? □ ■ □ ■ □

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? □ ■ □ ■ □

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

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ■ □ □ ■ □

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? □ ■ □ ■ □

Downtown Area Plan EIR Summary The DAP EIR discusses air quality impacts on pages 4-69 through 4-77 (project-level air quality impacts) and page 4-87 (cumulative air quality impacts). The DAP EIR examined a range of potential impacts related to local and regional air quality, including consistency with the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan (CAP), possible exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TAC) and odors, and construction-period air quality impacts. Impacts were assessed in the context of adopted


34

planning documents, including the City’s 2003 General Plan and 1991 CAP. The DAP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures:

Impact AIR-1: Conflict with CAP Assumptions. Development anticipated under the Downtown Area Plan would increase population and employment at a greater rate than assumed when preparing the latest update to the CAP. This could lead to greater regional emissions of nonattainment air pollutants (or their precursors) than assumed in the CAP. This would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact AIR-2: Possible Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to TACs and Odors. Development anticipated under the Downtown Area Plan may expose sensitive receptors to TACs or odors through development of new residential units near non-residential uses that may be sources of TACs or odors, or through development of new non-residential development that may be sources of TACs or odors near existing residences or other sensitive receptors. Such exposure would represent a potentially significant impact. Mitigation AIR-2: Buffer TAC and Odor Emission Sources and Sensitive Land Uses. Consider

potential air pollution and odor impacts from future development that may emit pollution and/or odors when locating (a) air pollution sources, and (b) residential and other pollution-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of air pollution sources (which may include areas where buses idle, diesel generators, parking garage vents, restaurants, and other similar uses). Buffer sensitive receptors from TACs whenever possible, and if buffering is not feasible, apply appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, such as air filtration systems or other technologies.

While the above mitigation can address most conflicts, because buffering will not always be feasible, the DAP is technically inconsistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, and the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

Impact AIR-3: Construction Period Air Quality Impacts. Construction of development projects under the DAP would result in temporary emissions of dust and diesel exhaust that may result in both nuisance and health impacts. Without appropriate measures to control these emissions, these impacts would be considered significant.

Mitigation AIR-3: Implement BAAQMD-Recommended Measures to Control PM101

Emissions during Construction. Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and PM10 from construction are recommended to ensure that short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided. – Dust (PM10) Control Measures: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy

periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times. Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all

unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and

staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads.

1 PM10 is particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter.

Environmental Checklist Air Quality


Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (i.e., previously-graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more).

Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles.

Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the

construction site.

– Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.52: Clear signage at all construction sites will be posted indicating that diesel equipment

standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were onsite or adjacent to the construction site.

Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off-road diesel powered equipment. The project shall ensure that emissions from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately.

The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors).

Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.

Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed above would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Measures AIR-2 and AIR-3 would apply to the project. However, the DAP EIR concluded that impacts related to 1991 CAP consistency (Impact AIR-1) and possible exposure of sensitive receptors to odors (Impact AIR-2) would remain significant and unavoidable.

Air Quality Environmental and Regulatory Setting The project site is located in Berkeley, inside the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The SFBAAB’s moderate climate steers storm tracks away from the region for much of the year, although storms generally affect the region from November through April. The onshore breezes stimulated by the Pacific Ocean provide for generally very good air quality in Berkeley, but during the ozone smog season (typically May through October), transport studies have shown ozone precursor emissions generated in Oakland and Berkeley are often transported to other regions of the SFBAAB and beyond (e.g., Central Valley). These emissions are conducive to the formation of ozone smog. In the winter, reduced solar energy and cooler temperatures diminish ozone smog formation, but increase the likelihood of carbon monoxide formation.

Average annual temperatures in the area are in the mid-fifties, ranging from the low-forties on winter mornings to mid-seventies during summer afternoons. Daily and seasonal oscillations of

2 PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter.


36

temperature are small because of the moderating effects of the nearby ocean. In contrast to the steady temperature regime, rainfall is highly variable and confined almost exclusively to the “rainy” period from November through April. About 95 percent of the average annual rainfall of approximately 30 inches occurs during this period. Precipitation may vary widely from year to year as a shift in the annual storm track of a few hundred miles can mean the difference between a wet year and drought conditions.

Winds at the project site display several characteristic patterns. During the day, especially under fair weather conditions, winds are from the west and northwest as air funnels through the Golden Gate toward Berkeley. At night, cooling of the land generates winds from the east and southeast. Summer afternoon sea breezes typically range from 20 to 30 miles per hour. Peak annual winds occur during winter storms. South and southeast winds typically also precede weather systems passing through the region.

As required by the federal Clean Air Act passed in 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has identified six criteria air pollutants that are pervasive in urban environments and for which state and federal health-based ambient air quality standards have been established. USEPA calls these pollutants “criteria air pollutants” because the agency has regulated them by developing specific public health- and welfare-based criteria as the basis for setting permissible levels. Ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), and lead are the six criteria air pollutants.

The California Health and Safety Code defines TACs as air pollutants “which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health” (Section 39655[a]). By definition, TACs include substances listed in the federal Clean Air Act as “hazardous air pollutants.” TACs are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than criteria air pollutants, but are linked to short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic and/or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. There are hundreds of types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes, commercial operations (e.g., gasoline stations and dry cleaners), and motor vehicle exhaust. Unlike regulations concerning criteria air pollutants, there are no ambient air quality standards for evaluation of TACs based on the amount of emissions. Instead, emissions of TACs are evaluated based on the degree of health risk that could result from exposure to these pollutants.

Project-Specific Impacts a) The California Clean Air Act requires air districts to create a Clean Air Plan that describes how the jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. These plans must be updated every three years. The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Bay Area is the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 Plan). The 2017 Plan is a roadmap showing how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the state standard for atmospheric ozone levels over a one-hour period as expeditiously as practicable, and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The 2017 Plan does not include control measures that apply directly to individual development projects. Instead, the control strategy includes stationary-source control measures to be implemented through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations; mobile-source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2017 Plan also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the state one-hour ozone standard.


Air Quality


Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with the most recently adopted CAP should demonstrate that a project protects air quality and health at the regional and local scale, and protects the climate. Any project that would not support these goals would not be considered consistent with the 2017 Plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted to be that it supports for the 2017 Plan goals. The project would not generate emissions exceeding those anticipated by the DAP EIR (discussed further in items b and c), and therefore, the project would not conflict with CAP goals. This impact would be less than significant.

b, c) A significant air quality impact may occur when a project individually or cumulatively interferes with progress toward the SFBAAB’s attainment of the state one-hour ozone standard by releasing emissions that equal or exceed the established long term quantitative thresholds for pollutants, or causes an exceedance of a state or federal ambient air quality standard for any criteria pollutant. Primary criteria pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory) into the atmosphere. Commonly found primary criteria pollutants include reactive organic gases (ROG), nitric oxides (NOx), CO, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). PM10 is particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter, and PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter.

The City of Berkeley has determined that the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in the updated May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for project operations in the Bay Area are the most appropriate thresholds to determine air quality impacts of the project. The 2017 CEQA Air Quality CEQA Guidelines include the following average daily project-level significance thresholds for temporary construction-related and long-term operational emissions of air pollutants:

▪ 54 pounds per day ROG ▪ 54 pounds per day NOX ▪ 82 pounds per day PM10 (exhaust only) ▪ 54 pounds per day PM2.5 (exhaust only)

Construction of the project would include standard equipment used to excavation to a maximum depth of approximately 23 feet over an estimated 24-month period. This construction activity is within the scope anticipated in the DAP EIR for the plan area as a whole because the project would be consistent with the land use and zoning parameters for the site (see Section 11, Land Use and Planning). As anticipated in the DAP EIR, emissions from construction of the project have the potential to cause both nuisance and heawlth-related air quality impacts. However, adherence to recommended measures in DAP EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-3 to reduce diesel particulate matter and PM10 emitted by construction activity would reduce adverse effects on air quality to less than significant. The applicant also would be subject to the City’s standard condition of approval shown on Page 103 to notify businesses and residents within 500 feet of the site of impending construction activities, the daily construction schedule and expected duration, and contact information for a liaison responsible for responding to local complaints about construction noise. This requirement would ensure prior notification of construction activities that generate particulate matter. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to air quality after implementation of DAP EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-3.

d) Certain population groups are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially


38

pollution than non-residential uses because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Although the project would not involve commercial uses and would not emit substantial TAC quantities, nearby permitted sources and major roadways may pose health risks for proposed residents. For example, permitted sources nearby may include diesel back-up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, and auto s

1951 shattuck avenue mixed-use project · the project site encompasses 0.4 acres and is located at...

Documents