appendix a nop and comment letters - berkeley, california · 2012. 5. 30. · appendix a nop and...

APPENDIX A

NOP and Comment Letters

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division

1

NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SCOPING SESSION FOR THE

ACHESON COMMONS PROJECT The City of Berkeley is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identified below. An Initial Study has been prepared and is available at the City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department, Land Use Planning Division, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, California or online at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us. The EIR will address the potential physical and environmental effects for the following topics: aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation and traffic pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Berkeley staff invites you to comment on the proposed scope of the Draft EIR. The City of Berkeley is the Lead Agency for the project and is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for either approving the project or carrying it out. This notice is being sent to Responsible Agencies and other interested parties. Responsible Agencies are those public agencies, besides the City of Berkeley, that also have a role in approving or carrying out the project. Responsible Agencies will need to use the EIR that is prepared when considering approvals related to the project. When the Draft EIR is published, it will be sent to all Responsible Agencies and to others who respond to this Notice of Preparation (NOP) or who otherwise indicate that they would like to receive a copy. Please send any response you may have within 30 days from the date you receive this notice and before November 17, 2011. Response to this NOP and any additional questions or comments should be directed in writing to: Greg Powell, Senior Planner, City of Berkeley, Planning and Development Department, Land Use Planning Division, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, California 94704; (510) 981-7414 (phone); (510) 981-7420 (fax); [email protected]. Comments on the NOP must be received at the above mailing or email address on or before November 17, 2011. In addition, comments may be provided at the EIR Scoping Meeting. Comments should focus on discussing possible impacts on the physical environment, ways in which potential adverse effects might be minimized, and alternatives to the project in light of the EIR’s purpose to provide useful and accurate information about such factors.

EIR PUBLIC SCOPING HEARING The City of Berkeley will conduct a public scoping session on

Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 6:00 p.m. 2120 Milvia Street (Permit Service Center), First Floor Conference Room

PROJECT TITLE: Acheson Commons PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located in Downtown Berkeley, on a block bounded by Shattuck Avenue on the west, University Avenue on the south, Walnut Street on the east and Berkeley Way on the north (see Figure 1). The project site is located in the General Commercial


2

(C-1) Zoning District. Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 057-2046-004-00; 057-2046-005-00; 057-2046-006-00; 057-2046-008-02 to -03; 057-2046-010-00; and 057-2046-011-00 EXISTING CONDITIONS: The approximately 47,560-square foot project is currently developed with multiple structures, including the MacFarlane Building (1970-1987 Shattuck Avenue and 2101-2109 University Avenue); the Krishna Copy Center building (2111-2113 University Avenue); the Crepes a Go-Go building (2125 University Avenue); the Acheson Physicians Building (2127 and 2135 ½ University Avenue); the Ace Hardware Building (2145 University Avenue); and 2 residential buildings (1922/1924 and 1930 Walnut Street). The Bachenheimer Building, located at 2119 University Avenue, bisects the project site, and is not part of the proposed project. The existing site plan is shown in Figure 2. Existing land uses on-site include retail, restaurant, and office; the residential buildings on the site are vacant. Several structures are recognized as historically significant by the City of Berkeley and according to the criteria set forth by the State Office of Historic Preservation, appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. PROJECT SPONSOR: Equity Residential PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project would involve the construction of 202 new dwelling units, 3 live/work units and the rehabilitation of approximately 33,250 square feet of commercial space. New five-story residential structures would be built above the MacFarlane, Krishna Copy Center and the Ace Hardware Buildings. Existing ground floor commercial space would continue as commercial use. The historic buildings and façades along University Avenue would be retained and rehabilitated. The Acheson Physicians Building would be converted from office use to residential use. The two vacant residential buildings on Walnut Street would be demolished or relocated, and a new mixed-use structure would be built. The ground floor of the Walnut Street Building would include a 50 stall parking garage. No other buildings on the site would include parking. The proposed site plan is depicted in Figures 3a and 3b. The proposed project would include private open space for use by building tenants. Open space would be provided in a courtyard behind the Acheson Physicians Building, a side yard between the Acheson Physicians Building and Ace Hardware Building, a roof deck on the MacFarlane Building and a roof deck on the Ace Hardware Building. Existing street trees on Shattuck and University Avenues would be protected and supplemented with new trees and landscaping. New street trees would be planted on Walnut Street and Berkeley Way where there are currently no street trees. Ground floor building entrances would be accented with landscaping. Streetscape improvements are proposed at the northwest corner of University Avenue and Walnut Street; the sidewalk would be widened and a raised cross walk would be constructed across Walnut Street. In addition, a widened area with landscaping and benches would be constructed mid-block west on University Avenue, in front of the Bachenheimer Building. A bulbed corner would be constructed at the southwest corner of Walnut Street and Berkeley


3

Way. The proposed project includes the change from parallel parking to reverse-entry angled parking on University Avenue, assuming the angled parking included in the Berkeley Downtown Area Plan is approved. REQUESTED APPROVALS: Discretionary actions/approvals by the City that may be necessary for this project include:

Landmarks Alteration Permit to rehabilitate and/or expand City of Berkeley Landmark buildings;

Design Review to allow the construction of new floor area and buildings;

Use Permit to provide less than the minimum number of residential parking spaces;

Use Permit to provide less than the minimum square footage of usable open space;

Use Permit to demolish 2 residential buildings and to eliminate 8 dwelling units;

Use Permit to construct more than 5,000 sq ft of new floor area;

Use Permit to exceed the 3-story/36-foot height limit;

Use Permit to create three live-work units;

Variance to exceed the C-1 District 4-story/50-foot height limit; and

Variance to exceed the C-1 District Floor Area Ratio limit of 3.0. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: City staff has completed an Initial Study for the proposed project and has made an initial determination that the significant effects of the proposed project would be limited to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation/traffic. All other issue topics are examined in the Initial Study and potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. The Draft EIR will also examine a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, including the CEQA-mandated No Project Alternative and other potential alternatives that may be capable of reducing or avoiding potential environmental effects.

Greg Powell, Senior Planner Date of Distribution: October 19, 2011 Attachments: Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of Project Site

Figure 2: Existing Site Plan Figure 3a: Proposed Site Plan – Ground Level Figure 3b: Proposed Site Plan – Second Floor/Podium Level

University AveUniversity Ave

Sh

attuck A

veS

hattu

ck Ave

Addison StAddison St

Berkeley WayBerkeley Way

Hearst AveHearst Ave

Oxfo

rd S

tO

xford

St

UC BerkeleyUC BerkeleyCampusCampusM

ilvia St

Milvia S

t

Waln

ut S

tW

alnu

t St

Th

e Crescen

t

University Ave

Berkeley Way

Hearst Ave

Addison St

Sh

attuck A

ve

Oxfo

rd S

t

Waln

ut S

tMilvia S

t

UC BerkeleyCampus

Th

e Crescen

t

feet

3500 175Project Site

FIGURE 1

SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2011.

I:\CBE1101 Acheson Commons\figures\NOP\Fig_1.ai (8/17/11)

Acheson Commons Project NOPAerial Photograph of Project Site

E

A B

C

D

F

feet

400 20

PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES

(P) WALL

(E) WALL

(E) BUILDING (NOT IN SCOPE)

TO BE REMOVED/DEMOLISHED

PROPERTY LINE

FIGURE 2

SOURCE: KIRK E. PETERSON & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, FEBRUARY 2011.

I:\CBE1101 Acheson Commons\figures\NOP\Fig_2.ai (9/15/11)

Acheson Commons Project NOPExisting Site Plan

feet

400 20

(P) PROPOSED WALL

(E) EXISTING WALL

(E) EXISTING BUILDING (NOT IN SCOPE)

FIGURE 3a


I:\CBE1101 Acheson Commons\figures\NOP\Fig_3a.ai (9/16/11)

Acheson Commons Project NOPProposed Site Plan - Ground Level

feet

400 20

(P) PROPOSED WALL

(E) EXISTING WALL

(E) EXISTING BUILDING (NOT IN SCOPE)

FIGURE 3b


I:\CBE1101 Acheson Commons\figures\NOP\Fig_3b.ai (9/16/11)

Acheson Commons Project NOPProposed Site Plan - Second Floor/Podium Level

Acheson Commons Initial Study and Notice of Preparation Review Provided for Equity Residential

Prepared by: Mark A. Rhoades, AICP

Citycentric

November 17, 2011 Introduction The following are Equity Residential’s comments on the Initial Study prepared by the City of Berkeley and LSA Associates for the Acheson Commons project in Downtown Berkeley. While the Initial Study is extremely conservative in its identification of potentially significant impacts, we believe that all of those will prove to be either mitigated or less than significant once the Draft Environmental Impact Report is circulated. Equity Residential is not asking for a re‐issue of the Initial Study. Rather, that the following comments be taken into consideration along with available data so that the Draft Environmental Impact Report should not include any potentially significant impacts and can reflect the downgraded level of potential impacts that may exist. Acheson Commons is a proposal to create an environmentally superior project in the core of Berkeley’s transit‐oriented downtown. The project incorporates and rehabilitates several historic and potentially historic structures and provides for their significant reinvestment, as well as a significant level of reinvestment in the core of Berkeley’s downtown. The proposed project includes implementation of the Streets and Open Space Improvements Plan component of the Downtown Area Plan, even though it is not required for the project to do so, reducing environmental impacts that have existed for decades. Acheson Commons represents an investment in downtown Berkeley of tens of millions of dollars for an environmentally sustainable development project. The draft Initial Study includes a number of issues that are checked as “Potentially Significant Impact.” In almost all cases the correct response is either “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” or “Less Than Significant Impact.” The studies submitted by the applicant to date and existing information address many of the issues that have been raised in the Initial Study. In addition, the City’s standard conditions, compliance with the Uniform Building Code, and mitigations reduce all of the potential impacts. Based on the downtown’s context, the analysis provided below, and the project information on file in the City of Berkeley the list of “Factors” that we believe will fall out of the Potentially Significant category include:

• Aesthetics,

• Cultural Resources,

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions,

• Transportation/Traffic,

• Air Quality, or,

• Noise

Acheson Commons Response to Initial Study

November 17, 2011 Page 2 of 10

The reports and studies that have been submitted to date include the following:

• Traffic and Parking Study prepared by Abrams and Associates, registered Traffic Engineers

• Historic Resource Analysis prepared by Mark Hulbert, a registered architect and certified architectural conservationist

• Phase I Environmental Analysis prepared by a licensed environmental firm

• Visual Simulations/Studies prepared by Kirk Peterson Architect, the applicant’s licensed preservation architect

• Geotechnical Report prepared by Allan Kropp and Associates, registered Geotechnical Engineers In general, if a CEQA issue cannot be mitigated it is considered to have a Potentially Significant Impact. A mitigation measure is required for potential impacts if they are unique to the project or if the local agency does not already have appropriate methods, standards, or conditions for addressing the issue. Section 21151(b) of the CEQA Statute states,

For purposes of this section, any significant effect on the environment shall be limited to substantial or potentially substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions which exist within the area as defined in Section 21060.5 (author note: this section is the CEQA Statute’s definition of “Environment.” )

Where the City of Berkeley has already developed standard conditions of approval and/or where certain types of projects are already subject to a regulatory standard, mitigations are not appropriate under CEQA. For instance, Hydrology and Water Quality (Item IX.a) is checked as “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” but the mitigation is compliance with the City’s pre‐existing RWQCB Municipal Regional Permit. As such, the project should be conditioned for compliance with the C.3 provisions of the MRP and the Initial Study box should be checked “Less Than Significant Impact.” Similarly, there are a number of issues that are checked as “Less Than Significant Impact” where there is no evidence presented to support the determination for any potential impact. In those cases the item should be checked “No Impact.” The proposed Acheson Commons project is located in the core of Downtown Berkeley. Berkeley’s downtown is a highly transit‐oriented, densely urbanized environment that is well served by existing infrastructure and services. The project site itself has been completely developed and covered in buildings and concrete for over one hundred years. The proposed project will significantly improve the site and its surroundings from an environmental perspective. There are a number of issues where it can be seen with certainty that no impact exists. For instance, Hydrology and Water Quality (Item IX.i) should be checked “No Impact” because, as the Initial Study already states, there isn’t anything near the project site (or above it) that has the potential to expose people to flooding by a dam or levee break.



Checklist Comments The following comments are prepared from the Initial Study. They reflect what the applicant believes should be reflected in the DEIR after a full review of information, with the explanation in the DEIR for each of the issues areas where the potential for impacts is downgraded. The revisions are organized in the order that they appear on the Initial Study Checklist circulated for the project. Only those items where changes are proposed are listed, which is why the numbering is not sequential. I. Aesthetics – Visual simulations and architectural studies were prepared by Kirk Peterson Architects, a licensed architect, for the proposed project. These renderings and studies provide evidence that the proposed project will be harmonious with the downtown’s current design aesthetic and consistent with its “Early 20th Century” design ethic. Items a., c., and d. should be checked “Less Than Significant Impact” instead of as a Potentially Significant Impact. Item a – There are no significant public views of the SF Bay or the Berkeley Hills from the project site. Views toward the hills are all blocked by multi‐story structures, primarily on the UC Berkeley campus. Existing buildings and trees block views toward the Bay as well. The attached photographs and additional data submitted in support of the project show that this is a “Less Than Significant Impact.” Item c – The proposed project will rehabilitate deteriorating historic resources while constructing new, visually harmonious buildings along with full implementation of the draft SOSIPS Plan. The proposed project is subject to public design and architectural preservation review by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The Design Review Committee may also review the proposed project, and the Zoning Adjustments Board will conduct meetings and exercise their discretion over Acheson Common’s overall program, including its design and aesthetics. The proposed project is consistent with its existing context and surrounding buildings and is consistent with the voter approved Measure R for the Downtown Area Plan. No evidence has been provided that the proposed project will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (CEQA Checklist), as stated in the Initial Study. Therefore the project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. Item d. – The additional windows that the project proposes are not large, expansive areas of reflective surface that has the potential to generate new sources of substantial glare. No large, expansive areas of reflective surface are proposed anywhere on the project. The lighting for the proposed project is subject



to the City of Berkeley’s requirements and review and approval by the LPC, ZAB and potentially DRC. The proposed lighting is not out of character with that of surrounding buildings or the downtown environs. Therefore this is a Less Than Significant Impact. III. Air Quality – Items a. – e. should be checked “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” or Less Than Significant instead of “Potentially Significant Impact.” The Traffic and Parking Study is not completed and there are a number of issues and comments provided by the City that are currently being addressed. However, the bulk of the Traffic Study is complete and there does not appear to be any evidence that there will be traffic impacts, so there should be no air quality impacts. There are no proposed uses for the project that have the potential to generate air quality impacts. There are no proposed changes of use from what exists today, which includes residential, office, and retail. There is less parking spaces than residential units so fewer auto trips are anticipated than for a typical project, which means that there will be less traffic and less air quality issues associated with that traffic. It is important to note that the recently adopted Santa Monica General Plan EIR found that transit‐oriented development, such as this project is a gross environmental benefit where status quo development was a Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan. IV. Biological Resources – Item d. should be checked “No Impact.” It is simply not possible that a site that has been covered with concrete and buildings for more than 100 years and is located in the dense urban core of Downtown Berkeley is going to “Interfere substantially with any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.” (Initial Study Checklist) There are no such communities in the vicinity of or proximal to the project site or in the downtown area. V. Cultural Resources –Items b., c., and d. should be checked “Less Than Significant Impact” instead of “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.” The Initial Study does not include any reference to the architectural evaluation prepared by Mark Hulbert, a well recognized and highly regarded architectural historian who has prepared numerous studies for review by Berkeley’s LPC and ZAB. It also does not provide analysis of the architectural design and program prepared by Kirk Peterson, Architect. The LPC has responded favorably to the project’s design program. BAHA was not present at the scoping session. The project will rehabilitate exiasting historic facades while sensitively constructing new additions behind them. We believe that will appropriate mitigation this issue will be mitigated. For issues relevant to paleontological or archaeological impacts, Berkeley (and most other jurisdictions) has relied upon standard conditions of approval for the potential of subsurface resources for projects that involve earthwork. This project is not different so standard conditions should apply. VI. Geology and Soils – Items a.ii, a.iii, b., c., and d. should all be listed as “Less Than Significant” instead of “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.” Allan Kropp and Associates, a registered Geotechnical Engineer prepared a geotechnical evaluation for Acheson Commons. The findings of that analysis are not discussed in the Initial Study. That report does not identify any unique



circumstances relevant to the project’s design, the geologic structure or substructure of the area, soil conditions, earthquake or liquefaction potential that is not already addressed by standard conditions of approval and requirements for additional review during building plan check. Therefore these are Less Than Significant Impacts. VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Item a. should be listed as “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated” and Item b. should be “No Impact” where both are listed as “Potentially Significant Impact.” Item a. The City of Berkeley recently released an Initial Study that found that a 155‐unit project with 25,000 square feet of retail, located OUTSIDE of the downtown area with less transit accessibility, would have a “Less Than Significant Impact” on the environment. Located in the heart of downtown and one block from BART and the UC campus the proposed project will reduce localized GHG’s and Berkeley’s per capita carbon footprint. The City’s own recent finding, with some quantitative analysis states the following:

BAAQMD has adopted the following thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use development projects: compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent); or 4.6 MT CO2e per resident and/or employee. Although the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), the CAP is not a “qualified GHG Reduction Strategy” because it has not undergone CEQA review. BAAQMD‘s preferred method for quantifying GHG emissions from a project is to use the BAAQMD GHG Model (BGM). The Air District developed this model to calculate GHG emissions not included in URBEMIS (another commonly used model) such as indirect emissions from electricity use and waste and direct fugitive emissions of refrigerants. BGM quantifies different types of GHG emissions in terms of CO2e and contains a broad range of GHG reduction strategies that may be applied to projects. BGM also adjusts for state regulations, specifically California‘s low carbon fuel rules and Pavley regulations. Using the BMG, BAAQMD staff calculated the project’s “unmitigated” net GHG emissions at 1,021 MT/yr, which is below the significance threshold of 1,100 MT/yr. This calculation does not account for reduced automobile usage due to bicycle parking, transit passes, and parking “cash‐out”, which the applicant has agreed to provide as part of the project. To show the benefit of these measures, BAAQMD also calculated the “mitigated” net GHG emissions at 496 MT/yr. Based on these calculations, the project would not generate significant GHGs.

Item b. (Language mostly taken from a recent Initial Study prepared by the City of Berkeley) The City of Berkeley adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on June 2, 2009. The CAP focuses on transportation, which encompasses 47 percent of Berkeley’s GHG emissions. As such, the CAP outlines multiple policies and actions in Chapter 3, Sustainable Transportation & Land Use, to ensure that new



development is oriented towards public transit and a mix of accessible land uses, and manages parking in a manner that discourages automobile use. The project site is well‐served by public transportation, with numerous AC Transit lines (including Transbay lines) and a BART station one block away. The site is also within walking distance of numerous goods and services, including Walgreen’s and Trader Joe’s, a full service grocery store. It is also located in Downtown Berkeley, near Berkeley High School, and UC Berkeley, and the project includes generous on‐site bicycle parking spaces. Finally, the project would encourage transit use by not providing on‐site parking and requiring that any tenant using on‐site facilities pay additional rent = unbundled parking). The proposed project therefore would be in compliance with the goals and policies of the CAP, and there would be no impact. The project is also consistent with recognized strategies for reducing regional GHG emissions, in that it is a relatively dense infill development near transit, as opposed to lower‐density development in more suburban locations, which generate much higher per‐capita GHG emissions. VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials – Items b., and c. should be “No Impact” instead of “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.” The project is subject to the Water Board’s Municipal Regional Permit because it is over one acre is size. The MRP’s conditions of compliance for projects of this size are standard requirements and are standard conditions of approval but not mitigations. The project’s requirement for compliance with this standard makes this a less than significant impact. If a condition of approval needs to be required to address this further, the City’s standard condition should be applied, which essentially state:

• Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit to TMD a survey of hazardous building components and materials, including, but not limited to, lead paint, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), mercury, asbestos, and chemically treated wood. The survey shall include a plan for proper disposal of such materials, and shall be prepared by a qualified professional, as determined by TMD.

• Prior to issuance of a building permit, construction drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Toxics Management Division (TMD). The applicant shall provide to TMD a plan (hereinafter “Plan”) for detection, analysis, and removal of any contaminated soil and groundwater or underground storage tanks that may be discovered during construction activities and this Plan must be approved prior to building permit issuance. TMD shall have authority, based on permit review and/or subsequent detection of contaminated materials, to require additional information and/or actions as necessary to protect construction workers, the community and the environment. Impacted soil and groundwater identified during demolition, grading, or excavation shall be



removed, segregated, and covered and disposed of according to the approved Plan. The soil shall be profiled for off‐site disposal and be removed from the site within 48 hours. TMD shall be notified upon discovery of any new contamination not previously addressed by the TMD. Otherwise, the developer will follow agreed‐upon goals for removal and clean up.

IX. Hydrology and Water Quality – Items a and e should be “Less Than Significant.” Items b and I should be “No Impact.” Items a and e‐ The project should be conditioned for compliance with C.3 of the MRP and with the requirements of the Statewide Construction General Permit. These are not mitigation measures. Item b – The Initial Study states that the project does not have the potential to impact groundwater at or in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, there is no impact. Item I ‐ The Initial Study states that there isn’t anything near the project site (or above it) that has the potential to expose people to flooding by a dam or levee break. Therefore there is no impact. X. Land Use Planning – Item a should be “No Impact.” Acheson Commons is not a proposal for a freeway, railroad tracks, an interstate highway (examples provided in initial study) or any other physical barrier. The project does not propose to divide the community or a neighborhood. The project proposes to provide streetscape connectivity and improved pedestrian and bicycle environments. The site is already developed with dense urban uses and the proposal includes implementation of the City’s draft SOSIPS Plan. Therefore it will actually improve the connectivity of the downtown itself and with surrounding neighborhoods. XII. Noise – Items a – d require revision.

Item a should be checked “Less Than Significant.” Item b should be checked “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated.” Item c should be checked “No Impact.” Item d should be checked “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.”

See discussions in recent City of Berkeley Initial Studies. The proposed project does not represent a change of use from the existing. It proposes more intensive residential use, but residential “noise” is less than typical ambient commercial noise. There is potential for noise levels to be high in the dwelling units because of the proximity to major streets, but Building Code requirements and standard conditions for interior noise address this issue. These issues should be “Less Than Significant” except for Item d., and are addressed with the City’s standard noise conditions of approval for projects of this type, including:

• Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Division and the Zoning Officer by a qualified acoustic engineer certifying that the interior residential portions of the project will achieve interior noise levels of no more than 45 Ldn (Average Day‐Night Levels).



If the adopted Building Code imposes a more restrictive standard for interior noise levels, the report shall certify compliance with this standard.

There will of course be short‐term construction noise. Item d. could be mitigated using the City’s standard mitigation (which at this point should be considered a standard condition of approval that would allow for a finding of Less Than Significant):

• Prior to the issuance of a building permit, 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 should include, but shall not be limited to, the following measures:

• Noise barrier at the site boundary adjacent to the abutting residential property, if the acoustical analysis proves such a barrier to be feasible and substantially effective in reducing noise impact at the adjacent residential property.

• Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).

• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed‐air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed‐air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.

• Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.

• Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening contact number for the on‐site complaint and



enforcement manager, and the City’s Noise Enforcement Officer, in the event of problems.

• An on‐site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures (considered technically and economically feasible) warranted to correct the problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager shall notify the City’s Noise Enforcement Officer of all complaints within 24 hours. The manager will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all construction hours to respond to complaints; and

• Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a pre‐construction meeting shall be held with the Noise Enforcement Officer and the general contractor/on‐site project manager to confirm that noise reduction measures and practices are completed (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.).

XIII. Population and Housing ‐ Items a and b should be checked “No Impact.” The proposed project only proposes 205 dwelling units, which as is pointed out in the Initial Study is a less than 1% (actually less than .5%) As such this is not an inducement of substantial population growth. In addition, the project proposes to displace eight units, but replace them with 205. This not a displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing, it is an addition of housing therefore it is not an impact. XVI. Traffic and Transportation – Items a, b, d, e, and f should be checked “Less Than Significant Impact.” The Traffic and Parking Study is not completed and there are a number of issues and comments provided by the City that are currently being addressed. However, the bulk of the Traffic Study is complete and there does not appear to be any evidence that there will be traffic impacts. There are no proposed uses for the project that have the potential to generate levels of traffic that were not anticipated by the existing Downtown Plan EIR or the EIR adopted for the draft Downtown Area Plan. There are no proposed changes of use from what exists today, which includes residential, office, and retail. In fact, there will be a significant reduction of the potential traffic generated by the four‐story Acheson Physician’s building, which will be converted to residential uses. Residential uses at this project will be far lower in trip generation that typical residential for three reasons. First, the project is located in the core of downtown. Second, the project is located one block from BART. Third, the project will not provide parking for all of the residential units.



It is important to note that the recently adopted Santa Monica General Plan EIR found that transit‐oriented development, such as this project is a gross environmental benefit where status quo development was a Significant Impact. The proposed project is also consistent with Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan. The proposed project will improve traffic, parking and pedestrian facilities consistent with the draft DAP standards and far exceeding the City of Berkeley’s minimum requirements for these improvements. The proposed project is dense urban housing located in the core of Berkeley’s transit‐rich downtown. There is no evidence that can lead to the determination that the proposed project requires mitigation, so there can be no significant impact in any of these categories. XVII. Utilities and Service Systems – A number of items require revision.

Item a should be checked “No Impact.” Item b should be checked “Less Than Significant Impact.” Item c should be checked “No Impact.” Item e should be checked “No Impact.”

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance – Items b and c should be “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated.” As described in the analysis above, in the Initial Study circulated by the City of Berkeley, and by the facts associated with the proposed project, the only Potentially Significant Impact is associated with architectural (Cultural) resources. Other potential impacts have been shown to be mitigated or are addressed by other standards or requirements. Therefore, none of the issues addressed in items b and c will have a potentially significant impact. Thank you for your consideration of this information. If you have any questions or need clarification please do not hesitate to contact Mark Rhoades, AICP, at 510.420.6900.

appendix a nop and comment letters - berkeley, california · 2012. 5. 30. · appendix a nop and...

Documents