Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Project

BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT

DRAFT EIR

City of Berkeley November 2011

BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT

Draft EIR SCH 2011092011

Prepared for the City of Berkeley

By:

URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS, INC. 350 FRANK OGAWA PLAZA, 5TH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612

With

William Self Associates, Inc. Illingworth & Rodkin TJKM Transportation Consultants

November 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. PURPOSE OF EIR ...... 1 B. PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 1 C. EIR SCOPE ...... 2 D. REPORT ORGANIZATION ...... 3

II. SUMMARY ...... 5 A. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 5 B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5 C. SUMMARY TABLE ...... 7

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 17 A. PROJECT SITE ...... 17 B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...... 20 C. PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 21 D. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ...... 27

IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 31 A. HISTORIC RESOURCES ...... 33 B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...... 49 C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ...... 63

V. ALTERNATIVES ...... 101 A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND IMPACTS ...... 102 B. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ...... 103 C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ...... 107

VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ...... 109 A. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ...... 109 B. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ...... 109 C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ...... 110 D. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES ...... 111 E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 112

VII. REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES ...... 113 A. PREPARERS ...... 113 B. REFERENCES ...... 114 C. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ...... 116

i BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES Appendix A: Initial Study and Notice of Preparation; Comment Letters on NOP

The following Appendices are available as a PDF at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/planning/ or on a CD at the City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Division.

Appendix B: Berkeley Iceland Landmark Nomination and Designation Appendix C: Historic Resource Evaluation Appendix D: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations Appendix E: Traffic and Circulation Analysis

ii NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figures Figure III-1 Project Vicinity Map ...... 18 Figure III-2 Project Area Aerial Photograph ...... 19 Figure III-3 Site Plan ...... 22 Figure III-4 Ground Floor Plan ...... 23 Figure III-5 Project Existing and Proposed Building Elevations ...... 25 Figure IV.C-1 Vicinity Map ...... 66 Figure IV.C-2 Site Plan ...... 67 Figure IV.C-3 Existing Conditions Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls ...... 69 Figure IV.C-4 Existing Turning Movement Volumes ...... 70 Figure IV.C-5 Existing Plus Approved Projects Turning Movement Volumes ...... 72 Figure IV.C-6 2035 Conditions Turning Movement Volumes ...... 75 Figure IV.C-7 Proposed Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ...... 83 Figure IV.C-8 Existing Plus Approved Plus Project Conditions Turning Movement Volumes ...... 84 Figure IV.C-9 2035 Plus Project Conditions Turning Movement Volumes ...... 88

iii BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tables Table II-1A Summary of EIR Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 9 Table II-1B Summary of Initial Study Findings and Standard Conditions of Approval ...... 11 Table III-1 Proposed Construction Phasing Plan ...... 28 Table III-2 Required Permits and Approvals ...... 29 Table IV.A-1 Cultural Resources Recorded within ½-mile of the Berkeley Iceland Project Area ...... 41 Table IV.A-2 City of Berkeley Historic Landmarks in the Vicinity ...... 42 Table IV.B-1 Summary of GHG Emissions ...... 61 Table IV.C-1 Existing Intersection Operations...... 71 Table IV.C-2 Intersection Level of Service – Existing plus Approved Projects Conditions ...... 73 Table IV.C-3 Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative Year 2035 Conditions ...... 76 Table IV.C-4 Trip Generation Summary for Other Sports Basement Sites ...... 80 Table IV.C-5 Project Trip Generation for Sports Basement, Berkeley ...... 81 Table IV.C-6 Intersection Level of Service – Existing plus Approved plus Project Conditions ...... 85 Table IV.C-7 TIRE Index Analysis on Ward Street and Derby Street ...... 87 Table IV.C-8 Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions ...... 89 Table IV.C-9 Parking Demand Ratio ...... 93 Table IV.C-10 Project Demand Ratio ...... 94 Table IV.C-11 Project Parking Demand ...... 94 Table IV.C-12 On-Street Parking Occupancy in Project Vicinity (Within Two Blocks) ...... 95 Table IV.C-13 On-Street Parking Occupancy in Project Vicinity Adjacent to the Project Site ...... 98

I. INTRODUCTION

A. PURPOSE OF EIR

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the environmental consequences of the proposed Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Project (project). This EIR is designed to inform City of Berkeley staff, Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, Zoning Adjustments Board, Landmarks Preservation Commission, and City Council; other responsible and interested agencies; and the general public of: (1) the proposed project and the potential environmental consequences of the project, (2) mitigation measures recommended to lessen or avoid significant adverse impacts, and (3) a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the EIR will be reviewed and considered by public agencies prior to making a decision to approve, reject, or modify the proposed project.

The City of Berkeley (City) is the lead agency for environmental review of the proposed project and as such has made the Draft EIR available for public review for the period identified in the Notice of Availability published with this document. During this time, written comments may be submitted to the Land Use Planning Division at the address indicated on the Notice of Availability. Responses to all comments received on the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR during the specified review period will be included in the Response to Comments/Final EIR document.

B. PROPOSED PROJECT

The Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project proposes to: (1) rehabilitate the 53,334-square-foot Berkeley Iceland building, a Streamline Moderne-style city landmark consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, and (2) and convert the building to commercial retail use. The adaptation of the structure would include the removal of the existing internal and external berms that support the north and south building walls to accommodate off-street parking, and interior improvements including the removal of the wood bleachers and construction of two interior mezzanine areas. Approval of a Use Permit is requested to allow a change of use, to construct two mezzanine areas totaling 18,528 square feet, and to reduce the number of off- street vehicle parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance. A Structural Alteration Permit is also being requested for the alteration of a City landmark. The renovated building would include a total of 71,862 square feet of commercial retail space (including accessory office and storage areas).

1 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 I. INTRODUCTION

Approximately 5,196 square feet of the building would be available to host community events. The project proposes a total of 44 off-street vehicle parking spaces, two off-street loading spaces, 64 off-street bike parking spaces and an additional 40 employee bicycle parking spaces within the store.

C. EIR SCOPE

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City prepared an Initial Study and determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. Because of this, an EIR is required. The City then circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP), which indicated the environmental topics that were anticipated to be addressed in this EIR. The NOP and the Initial Study identified topics considered to be less than significant as well as those that would require additional analysis in an EIR. The NOP was published on September 7, 2011, and the public comment period for the scope of the EIR lasted from September 7, 2011 to October 7, 2011. The NOP was sent to public agencies, organizations, and property owners within 500 feet of the project site. The NOP was also sent to responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and interested individuals. Additionally, the NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse. The City received five comment letters. A copy of the NOP and each comment letter received on the NOP is provided in Appendix A of this EIR.

Scoping sessions were held as part of a Zoning Adjustment Board (ZAB) meeting for the project on September 22, 2011, and at the Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting on October 11. Two individuals spoke during the ZAB scoping session, and Board/Commission members provided comments and questions. Written comments received by the City on the NOP and verbal comments received at the scoping meeting were taken into account during the preparation of the EIR. NOP comments were received from concerned citizens regarding a wide range of issues to be addressed in this EIR. The NOP and written comments received are included in Appendix A.

Key issues that were referenced in the NOP comment letters and verbal comments included issues related to:

. Aesthetics – concerns related to the project’s proposal to remove earthen berms.

. Biological Resources – concerns about the project’s potential to remove trees.

. Cultural Resources – concerns about adverse impacts to the historic and cultural value of Berkeley Iceland.

. Hydrology and Water Quality – concerns related to the potential for increased storm water runoff and location of a stream on the property.

. Land Use and Planning –concerns related to the land use proposed by the project and the preference for an indoor recreational use.

2 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR I. INTRODUCTION

. Public Services – concern related to the proposed project’s demands on public services.

. Recreation – concerns related to availability of indoor recreational opportunities.

. Transportation and Circulation – concerns related to the proposed project’s potential to increase traffic on surrounding streets.

Non-CEQA topic areas referenced include:

. Parking – commenters expressed concerns related to the project’s impact on parking.

A number of letters received contained comments that were not specific to the environmental impacts of the proposed project; these letters have been included in Appendix A.

The following environmental topics are addressed in this EIR:

A. Historic Resources B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions C. Transportation and Circulation

Environmental topics not warranting detailed evaluation based on the findings of the Initial Study (see Appendix A) include aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. These topics, including answers to comments made during the public comment period, are discussed briefly in Chapter VI, CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions, under Effects Found Not to be Significant.

D. REPORT ORGANIZATION

This EIR is organized into the following chapters:

. Chapter I – Introduction: Discusses the overall EIR purpose, provides a summary of the proposed project, describes the EIR scope, and summarizes the organization of the EIR.

. Chapter II – Summary: Provides a summary of the impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project and describes mitigation measures recommended to avoid or reduce significant impacts, and summarizes the alternatives section of the EIR.

. Chapter III – Project Description: Provides a description of the project objectives, project site, the proposed development, and required approval process.

3 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 I. INTRODUCTION

. Chapter IV – Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures: Describes the following for each environmental technical topic: existing conditions (setting), significance criteria, potential environmental impacts and their level of significance, and mitigation measures recommended when necessary to mitigate identified impacts. Cumulative impacts are also discussed in each technical topic section. Potential adverse impacts are identified by levels of significance, as follows: less-than-significant impact (LTS), significant impact (S), and significant and unavoidable impact (SU). The significance level is identified for each impact before and after implementation of the recommended mitigation measure(s).

. Chapter V – Alternatives: Provides an evaluation of three alternatives to the proposed project in order to meet the CEQA requirement that require an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The CEQA alternatives include: the No Project/No Build alternative, an alternative that restores an Ice Skating Rink in the structure, and an alternative that retains the earthen berms located on the north and south sides of the structure.

. Chapter VI – CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions: Provides the required analysis of growth-inducing impacts, significant irreversible changes, effects found not to be significant, and significant unavoidable and cumulative impacts.

. Chapter VII – Report Preparation: Identifies preparers of the EIR, references used, and the persons and organizations contacted.

. Appendices: The Appendices include the Initial Study and NOP and written comments submitted on the NOP, the historic resource nomination and historic impact analysis, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions calculations, and the transportation and circulation analysis.

All supporting technical documents and reference documents are available for public review at the City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Division.

The Draft EIR is available for public review for the period identified in the Notice of Availability. During this time, written comments on the Draft EIR may be submitted to the City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Division at the address indicated on the Notice of Availability. Responses to all comments received on the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR during the specified review period will be included in the Response to Comments/Final EIR document.

4 II. SUMMARY

A. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT

This EIR has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project. The 1.87-acre, rectangular-shaped project site is located in south Berkeley, approximately 0.75 miles south of the downtown core and the University of California Berkeley, and approximately 0.5 miles north of the Ashby BART station as shown in Figure III-1, Project Vicini- ty Map.

The project consists of rehabilitating the 53,334-square-foot Berkeley Iceland building (a Streamline Moderne-style City landmark), consistent with the Secre- tary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, and converting it to retail use. Key elements of the adaptation of the structure would include the removal of the existing internal and external berms that support the north and south building walls in order to accommodate off-street parking and interior improvements, including the removal of the wood bleachers and construction of two interior mezzanine areas, totaling 18,528 square feet.

The renovated building would include a total of 71,862 square feet of commercial retail space (including accessory office and storage areas). Approximately 5,196 square feet of the building would be available to host community events. The project proposes a total of 44 off-street vehicle parking spaces, two off- street loading spaces, 64 off-street bike parking spaces and an additional 40 employee bicycle parking spaces within the store.

Approval of a Use Permit is requested to allow a change of use, to construct two new mezzanine areas, and to reduce the required number of off-street vehicle parking spaces. A Structural Alteration Permit is also being requested for the alteration of a City landmark.

B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

This summary provides an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter IV, Set- ting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. CEQA requires a summary to include discussion of: (1) potential areas of controversy, (2) significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures, (3) cumulative impacts, (4) significant irreversible and unavoidable impacts, and (5) alternatives to the proposed project. Each of these topics is summarized below.

5 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 II. SUMMARY

1. Potential Areas of Controversy Letters and verbal comments received in response to the Notices of Preparation (NOP) dated September 7, 2011 raised a number of topics that the commenters wanted addressed in the EIR, including:

. Effects on historic resources related to the proposed removal of earthen berms on the project site;

. Effects of increased traffic at and around the project site based on the proposed use as a Sports Basement store; and

. Alternative of retaining the earthen berms and/or retaining the site as an indoor recreation facility.

The list above represents a majority of the topics identified by commenters. A full list of topics can be found in Chapter I. The issues raised by the commenters are addressed in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures and Chapter V, Alternatives. In addition, some of the comments offered in the NOP comment letters and at the Zoning Adjustment Board (ZAB) and the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) scoping meetings addressed the merits of the project itself and not the potential adverse environmental impacts that are the subject of this EIR. The City staff, ZAB, and LPC will consider these comments as part of their review of the requested project approvals, independent of the CEQA analysis. Verbal comments offered by those in attendance at the CEQA scoping sessions, reiterated many of the written comments on the NOP. Copies of the NOP, Initial Study, and written comment letters are included in Appendix A.

2. Significant and Significant Unavoidable Impacts Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as “…a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”1

As discussed in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, and in the Initial Study, and as shown in Table II-1 below, the project would result in a number of potentially significant impacts. Most of the impacts identified could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures or standard conditions of approval; however, some of the project impacts may be significant and unavoidable.

Impacts that may not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level and could remain significant (identified as SU in Table II-1) are identified for the following topics: . Historic Resources

1 14 California Code Regs. 15382; Public Resources Code 21068.

6 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR II. SUMMARY

. Greenhouse Gas Emissions . Transportation and Circulation

Potentially significant impacts set forth below can be mitigated to a less-than- significant level with the implementation of City of Berkeley Standard Conditions of Approval (SCOA) or mitigation measures (MM) recommended in the Initial Study and adopted by this EIR:

Evaluated in Initial Study . Air Quality . Biological Resources . Cultural Resources (excluding historic resources) . Geology and Soils . Hazards and Hazardous Materials . Hydrology and Water Quality . Noise

The Initial Study concludes that impacts would be less than significant for all other environmental topics.

Cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapter VI, CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions. The EIR concludes that the proposed project would not significantly contribute to, or be affected by, any significant cumulative impacts.

3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Chapter V, Alternatives includes analysis of three alternatives to the proposed project to meet the CEQA requirements for analysis of a reasonable range of project alternatives. The three project alternatives analyzed in Chapter V include:

. The No Project/No Build Alternative, which assumes the continuation of existing conditions within the project site;

. The No Project/Ice Skating Rink Refurbishment Alternative, which assumes the structure is updated and the building’s function as an ice skating rink is reestablished; and

. The Retail/Maintain Earthen Berms Alternative, which assumes that the existing earthen berms are retained and no additional on-site parking is provided for an adaptive reuse of the site as retail.

C. SUMMARY TABLE

Information in Table II-1A, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, has been organized to correspond with environmental issues discussed in Chapter IV followed by the topics analyzed in the Initial Study (Table II-1B). Table II-1A is ar- ranged in four columns: (1) impacts; (2) level of significance prior to mitigation

7 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 II. SUMMARY

(when mitigation is necessary); (3) recommended mitigation measures; and (4) level of significance after implementation of mitigation. Levels of significance are categorized as follows: LTS = Less Than Significant, S = Significant and SU = Significant and Unavoidable. A series of mitigation measures is noted where more than one mitigation measure is required to achieve a less-than-significant impact, and alternative mitigation measures are identified when available. For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures or standard conditions of approval, please refer to the specific discus- sions in Chapter IV and the Initial Study included in Appendix A.

8 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR II. SUMMARY

TABLE II-1A SUMMARY OF EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measure Mitigation Historic Resources HIST-1: The City of Berkeley has determined S HIST-1: It is recommended that the historic feeling that would be SU that a significant impact would occur to the affected by the berms’ removal be replicated to the extent possible historic setting of the existing Berkeley Ice- through creation of a silhouette on the walls that would be con- land structure if the earthen berms are re- structed once the berms are removed that would depict the height moved as part of project construction. and shape of the berms that once existed in those locations. This silhouette could be accented by a change in materials, patterns/texturing color, or other techniques. These techniques would mitigate but not fully compensate for the loss of the berms, and would result in a significant unavoidable impact to the historic resource based on the loss of integrity according to the landmark nomination forms. Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-1: The Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse S GHG-1: The proposed project includes a number of design features Cumulatively project would generate annual operational- that would help minimize the project’s impact on GHGs. However, SU related GHG emissions that would result in the implementation of these features would not reduce the project’s GHG emissions of 1,905 metric tons of CO GHG emissions to a cumulatively less-than-significant level and no 2e (47.63 per capita), which is in excess of the additional measures that would significantly reduce the project’s BAAQMD thresholds, resulting in a cumula- GHG emissions are available. No other features are available to fully tive considerable contribution to a cumula- mitigate this impact. tively significant GHG impact. Transportation and Circulation

TRAF-1: Implementation of the pro- S TRAF-1: Restrict the eastbound and westbound left turn movements SU posed Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse and through movements resulting in a right-turn-only movement Project would add more than three se- from Ward Street during the peak hours. The intersection is ex- conds of delay at MLK Jr. Way/Ward pected to operate at LOS B with a delay of 12.0 seconds/vehicle during the PM peak hour with the left-turn restrictions. This measure Street intersection which currently op- may not be feasible due to funding limitations and considerations erates at LOS E under the Existing and related to neighborhood traffic circulation. Accordingly, this impact Existing Plus Approved scenarios. is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

LTS = Less Than Significant , S = Significant, SU = Significant and Unavoidable

9 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 II. SUMMARY

TABLE II-1A SUMMARY OF EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measure Mitigation TRAF-2: Implementation of the proposed S TRAF-2: Restrict the eastbound and westbound left turn movements SU Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Project and through movements resulting in a right-turn-only movement would add more than three seconds of delay from Ward Street during the peak hours. The intersection is ex- at MLK Jr. Way/Ward Street intersection pected to operate at LOS B with a delay of 12.2 seconds/vehicle dur- which operates at LOS E under 2035 condi- ing the PM peak hour with the left-turn restrictions. This measure tions (without project). may not be feasible due to funding limitations and considerations related to neighborhood traffic circulation. Accordingly, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. Source: Urban Planning Partners, 2011.

LTS = Less Than Significant , S = Significant, SU = Significant and Unavoidable 10 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR II. SUMMARY

TABLE II-1B SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (SCA) Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With SCA or SCA or Topic Mitigation Standard Conditions of Approvals Mitigation Aesthetics No significant impacts related to aesthetics were identified. Agriculture and Forestry Resources No significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources were identified. Air Quality Construction Period Dust Emissions: S Standard Condition of Approval: Dust from construction activities shall LTS Dust and particulate matter from be controlled by following BAAQMD Rules and Regulations to reduce construction activities may require construction dust and diesel particulate emissions. control to minimize the exposure of Adherence to these rules and regulations would minimize the exposure sensitive receptors. of sensitive receptors to less-than-significant levels. Dust control measures include: . All piles of debris, soil, sand or other loose materials shall be covered at night and during rainy weather with plastic at least one-eighth mil- limeter thick and secured to the ground. . All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily, and all piles of debris soil, sand, or other loose materials shall be watered or covered. . Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load the top of the trail- er). . Sweep streets (preferably with water sweepers) of all visible soil material carried from the site. Biological Resources BIO-1: Trees on or around the site may S BIO-1: If any of the trees do not survive the construction period; the LTS not survive the construction period. applicant shall replace them in kind, or subject to size, species, and location at the discretion of the City arborist.

LTS = Less Than Significant , S = Significant, SU = Significant and Unavoidable

11 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 II. SUMMARY

TABLE II-1B SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (SCA) Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With SCA or SCA or Topic Mitigation Standard Conditions of Approvals Mitigation Cultural Resources Archaeological Resources: Resources S Standard Condition of Approval: If an archaeological resource is acci- LTS may be accidentally uncovered during dentally uncovered during demolition or construction activities for the demolition or construction activities. proposed project, the project applicant shall be required to notify the City of Berkeley immediately and all excavation work within ten feet of the find shall cease immediately. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine the necessity for monitoring the remaining excavation and to evaluate any cultural resource exposed during construction. Construction activity shall resume upon consultation with the City of Berkeley and upon implementation of the recommendations of the archaeologist. Cultural resources include, but are not limited to, railroad ties, foundations, privies, shell and bone artifacts, ash and charcoal. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on DPR 523 (historic properties) forms. Paleontological Resources: Resources S Standard Condition of Approval: If a paleontological resource is acci- LTS may be accidentally uncovered during dentally uncovered during demolition or construction activities for the demolition or construction activities proposed project, the project applicant shall be required to notify the City of Berkeley immediately and all excavation work within ten feet of the find shall cease immediately. A qualified paleontologist or archaeologist shall be consulted to determine the necessity for monitoring any excavation and to evaluate any paleontological resource exposed during construction. Construction activity shall resume upon consultation with the City of Berkeley and upon implementation of the recommendations of the paleontologist or archaeologist. Human Remains: Remains may be S Standard Condition of Approval: In the event that human skeletal re- LTS unexpectedly encountered during mains are encountered during demolition or construction activities for demolition. the proposed project, the project applicant shall immediately notify the County Coroner and the City of Berkeley. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the California Native Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code. In addition, all excavation work within 10 feet of the find shall cease immediately.

LTS = Less Than Significant , S = Significant, SU = Significant and Unavoidable 12 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR II. SUMMARY

TABLE II-1B SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (SCA) Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With SCA or SCA or Topic Mitigation Standard Conditions of Approvals Mitigation Geology and Soils Expansive soils may be encountered S Standard Condition of Approval: Prior to issuance of a building permit, LTS during construction of the project. the applicant shall submit any geotechnical plans and recommendations required by the Building and Safety Division. A soils report shall be submitted to the City and all the report’s recommendations incorporated into the project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazards or hazardous materials may be S Standard Condition of Approval: The RWQCB Best Management LTS encountered during demolition or Practices shall be implemented to minimize potential negative effects to construction activities. groundwater and soils. These could include the following: . Follow manufacturer’s recommendations on use, storage, and dis- posal of chemical products used in construction; . Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks; . During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove grease and oils; and . Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemi- cals. Hydrology and Water Quality The project could potentially increase S Standard Condition of Approval: Prior to issuance of a building permit, LTS runoff water and/or introduce the project shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the additional sources of pollution into City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as runoff water. described in Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 17.20. Such projects are required to control construction-related drainage and erosion through the following conditions: . The project plans shall identify site-specific Best Management Prac- tices (BMPs) appropriate to activities conducted on-site to limit to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants into the City’s storm drainage system, regardless of season or weather conditions. . The project plans shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system, in ac-

LTS = Less Than Significant , S = Significant, SU = Significant and Unavoidable

13 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 II. SUMMARY

TABLE II-1B SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (SCA) Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With SCA or SCA or Topic Mitigation Standard Conditions of Approvals Mitigation cordance with BMC Chapter 17.20. . Trash enclosures and/or recycling areas shall be covered; no other area shall drain onto these areas. Drains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to the storm drain system; these drains should connect to the sanitary sewer. . Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff and promote surface infiltration and minimize the use of fertiliz- ers and pesticides that contribute to stormwater pollution. Where feasible, landscaping should be designed and operated to treat runoff. When and where feasible, xeriscape and drought tolerant plants shall be incorporated into new development plans. Land Use and Planning No significant impacts related to land use and planning were identified. Mineral Resources No significant impacts related to mineral resources were identified. Noise Construction Period Noise: Receptors S Standard Condition of Approval: Hours of construction shall be limited LTS located near the project site could be to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to noon on Saturdays; no exposed to noise levels in excess of work shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays. The Zoning Officer standards established by the City of may approve up to 10 days of extended working hours upon written Berkeley. request by the applicant to accommodate special conditions, such as but not limited to extended concrete pours. Prior to the issuance of building permits, 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: . Install a noise barrier at the site boundary adjacent to the abutting residential property, if the acoustical analysis proves such a barrier to be substantially effective in reducing noise impact at the adjacent

LTS = Less Than Significant , S = Significant, SU = Significant and Unavoidable 14 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR II. SUMMARY

TABLE II-1B SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (SCA) Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With SCA or SCA or Topic Mitigation Standard Conditions of Approvals Mitigation 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 tele- phone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager

LTS = Less Than Significant , S = Significant, SU = Significant and Unavoidable

15 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 II. SUMMARY

TABLE II-1B SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (SCA) Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With SCA or SCA or Topic Mitigation Standard Conditions of Approvals Mitigation 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. . Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a pre-construction meeting shall be held with the Noise Enforcement Officer and the general con- tractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices are completed (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.). Population and Housing No significant impacts related to population and housing were identified. Public Services No significant impacts related to public services were identified. Recreation No significant impacts related to recreation were identified. Utilities and Service Systems No significant impacts related to utilities and service systems were identified. Source: Urban Planning Partners, 2011.

LTS = Less Than Significant , S = Significant, SU = Significant and Unavoidable 16 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This chapter describes the proposed Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project that is evaluated in this EIR. The chapter begins with a description of the project site and surrounding land uses, planning context, project background, objectives and a discussion of relevant project background, followed by a detailed description of the proposed project and a discussion of the intended uses of the EIR and required project approvals and entitlements.

A. PROJECT SITE 1. Location and Site Characteristics

Located at 2727 Milvia Street, the project site is approximately 0.75 miles south of the downtown core and the University of California Berkeley, and approximately 0.5 miles north of the Ashby BART station. Berkeley is located in Alameda County and is bordered by San Francisco Bay to the west, the cities of Kensington and Albany to the north, the City of Oakland to the south, and the Berkeley hills and East Bay Regional Park District open space to the east. Figures III-1 and III-2 show the project site’s local context.

Rectangular and generally flat, the project site slopes approximately 12 feet over about 400 feet, from a high point at the northeast corner of the site on Derby Street to a low point at the corner of Milvia and Ward Streets at the southwest corner of the site. An existing 53,334-square-foot building that formerly housed Berkeley Iceland is located on the site. The building is currently unoccupied and has been damaged by graffiti and vandalism. Windows and doors are boarded up or covered with plywood or hardened plastic materials; exposed glass areas are at risk for breakage and vandalism. The building occupies approximately 67 percent of the site; the remaining portions are either paved for building entries, loading and parking (16 spaces), or occupied by the earthen berms that support the north and south walls. The property is currently enclosed with a chain-link fence. Two-way driveways enable access to the existing 16 parking spaces from either Ward Street or Derby Street; a third driveway off of Ward Street allows access to the loading area located at the rear (east) of the existing structure.

The area is landscaped with street trees along Ward and Derby Streets as well as around the surface parking lots, including Victorian Box, Brisbane Box and Ray- wood Ash trees. Most of the trees are located within the public right-of-way, but three of the trees along Ward Street are located on the project site.

17 YALE, KE VERLY ARDMORE LOOP BE LENOX YALE

E FIRE TRAIL 3

K RUGBY CANON , PLATEAU

Y S TR S R A R VASSAR T W T E FO Y E N I K R SPRUCE L R H E L , T M O D E V N VALLEY W A R E O V City of Berkeley Parks O C C O M D YLA MAR ND O R V K C AE FT E E A E R A DG O N L E R M T T N C M A O I U V C I V N C S B H T I T K A E O I I580 BERKELEY PARK Y G Y M W N NORTH O I80 WEST, AL A OAKVIEW T N N ELDRIDGE O Dorothy T N Bolte Park IS V V ALL WOODMONT EJO A S IA L A PIERCE, AL L A CA C TON, A S W ADAMS, AL IGH N BR A A T I , S AN L Legend VISALIA N A N T A L LO O D N N B KAINS, AL E E R IO C I M A S A A A R R S M ACACIA T O N B B A N A C T POMONA,AL A N L R A A ROMONA, AL JU U N F G A A G N I O KEELER SEAVIEW Y T AL S NEILSON S, H N K R O A M , GARFIELD, AL O IZ I A D WOO N A HALKIN L Z THOUSAN A L D S L L L Y H S A D A R A P V A Great Stoneface R TE A E E N L S L A N MADISON, AL I E E K E N N T Park H SPOKANE, AL N R Bay trail / Paths A A G L S N C O P E R PT ALTA VISTA P O A T UTHA M O P SUNSET N O I P O PORTLAND, AL SANTA FE,AL A S O EVELYN, AL LAR L D COLUSA D S A A N A N , PORTLAND I S M POPLAR E AN O STANNAGE, AL D CORNELL, AL D I CARMEL,AL Frederick IEG N IE N O T N S CAPISTRANO N O R K L Park K O KEY ROUTE,AL SAN CARLOS,AL John Hinkel O E L V B E SAN LORENZO S C T I E E C L TE O E S FOREST H WASHINGTON, AL N D Park R VINCE R L CAPISTRANO A R T E A G S R East Bay State Park , F E N M O R O O TACOMA M T REG L O F Thousand A N I G D T IN JACKSON, AL R H Oaks School SAN PEDRO E D S G L C A A CRESTON MENDOCINO L E L W Solano Peralta Park Mortar Rock O F E POMONA,AL

SAN PABLO, AL ROMONA, AL I POLK, AL V E V

FILLMORE, AL Park P CERRITO, AL Park E E SOLANO, AL Contra Costa Grotto Rock Park O TAYLOR, AL L R L P D NEILSON, AL P CARMEL, AL A VENTURA, AL Rock Park L PERALTA SOLANO S Y M ORDWAY Tilden Park N M O Indian Rock A A D O City of Berkeley Parks EASTER H E N T K , N S East Bay Regional Park A T A O N A TULARE D A PINNACLE ROMONA, AL L L POPPY O B W C XF E B H Parks District O A M O I BUCHANAN,AL IN R N Cragmont LLVI

MODOC E D R I W

COLUSA O O L IT A ANGELES B L , LOS MARIN O A Park LE D WILDCAT CANYON FRESNO R E R SID R A Remillard E O H L L STERL A MUIR MAD ALAMEDA THE IN S MARIN, AL E O Park KEY ROUTE, AL R G P , A S KEITH LS T MARIN ARK IL A A H UC Berkeley Open Space S MASONIC, AL N R G A E ST U E T TWAIN A A I80 EAST, AL SONOMA, AL H SHASTA E L R T E S S BRET HA N O TWA I N BAYTREE Monterey AD FOUNTAIN E R Grizzly OHLONE,G AL O GOLF COURSE V SIERRA D O Colusa Park L H E Peak Park 9TH, AL O TWAIN STODDARD PARK MARIPOSA H I I T L D SONOMA G K W BEVERLY, AL H MERCED Y R EE L I ALBANY A N E L CORONA E E R M I TALBOT, AL R L G TEVLIN, AL E V S T EL MIRADOR SANTA FE, AL A , MONROE, AL N O O OAK UC Berkeley L D A NEILSON, AL O NAPA REDWOOD A O C L

N FRESNO , , M R A H 9TH, AL DARTMOUTH, AL CURTIS, AL S L T BEVERLY U 6 T SPRUCE ASTA ARCH H Fielding Field POSEN. AL T GLEN S AJAX PO YOLO E LAUREL E PERALTA, AL SE T N 1 R EUNICE YOLO A A COLUSA JOSEPHINE G 3RD MASO T H TAL T T L 2ND POSEN, AL A T AI 10TH Berkeley M U Harrison O A R Q TEVLIN, AL L L O F SUMMIT

BOT A NRY P N ATLASHILL R TTUCK A Regional Parks Park HARRISON NIC Rose Codornices IS I A R L C HE BERRYMAN Garden A BUCHANAN Park HARRISON King School SHA W BERRYMAN S N Park W E Glendale IE Q Recycling Center 8TH CARLOTTA V C TEVLIN Y Live Oak A I La Loma Park U Transfer Station ORDWAY, AL B E RN DELGLENDALE MAR C MC GEE Park HENRY O E GILMAN A N A M 7TH ALBINA ROSE O D O C L DEL MAR S KAINS L ROSE LA ACTON I SANTA FE F S ROSE GILMAN O H JOSEPHINE ROSE A T C R T IDA N RNE A UNNAMED ALLEY U N CURTIS E N I C O M A SPRING V

H LEROY A W PERALTA MILVIA K T P CAMELIA NEILSON ORDWAY A ARCH U K NORTHSIDE ADA W L S A Gilman Regional S RG E A R R STANNAGE I ENI O IZZ P SACRAMENTO BONITA L H Y VINE A A Sports Field BUENA T VINE IS F A V OLYM PAGE EN P IT GRIZZL HOPKINS BU US SUM M Y PEAK COMSTOCK UNNAMED ALLEY OXFORD LE L ROY A VE EASTSHORE HILL R WILSON L CORNELL A HOLLY JAYNES E I SCENIC N HENRY D CEN EN TOMLEE EDITH T SHATTUCK A FRONTAGE JONES Cedar-Rose CEDAR Cesar Chavez Park BATAAN BELVEDERE HILGARD NAMED L C Park HILGARD UN BL R E O N KAINS LINCOLN WALNUT A D T

LINCOLN EDITH LINCOLN E CEDAR MC GEE VIRGINIA VIRGINIA N N 9TH Virginia-McGee IA L SHORT Tot Lot , LE CONTE O ARCH

VIRGINIA EUCLID A SCENIC

R EOLA FRANCISCO E I80 WEST (OFF RAMP) UNIVERSITY

E WEST SPINNAKER C A FRANCISCO RIDGE U

FRANKLIN

R CALIFORNIA

CHESTNUT

P LA LOMA LA

DELAWARE HIGHLAND

A James S

T CY E Kenney Park Ohlone Park CL R VIRGINIA S O O TR C E HEARST UL O A DELAWARE E D SHORT N WEST D D O O HEARST ACTON G MARINA O

C HENRY

C A

BONITA C CYCLOTRON K BERKELEY M Y K Berkeley Way IN K IN BERKELEY G L HEARST E Mini Park MACFARLANE S ESPLANADE EASTSHORE N Y WALNUT WI CKSO O U UNIVERSITY T O F DOCK Eastshore C H RE CENT UC Berkeley D S G DOCK State Park H O GAYLEY, UC BERKELEY A C H 5TH L K DO ADDISON C L R J DOCK K ADDISON I K DOCK M N DOCK L DOCK 6TH S W M DOCK CAMPANILE A A A CENTER Y IAL Horseshoe T ISON BERKELEY ENN ADD SS CAM H NT UNIVERSITY Presentation C RO PUS CE E Park George COWPER BONAR WEST Civic Center RAMP Park N R Florence O ALLSTON Park T

L BROWNING Park U

F BYRON Adventure Strawberry HAROLD CANYON Charlie Dorr GRANT 5

Playground CURTIS Creek Park Mini-Park BARROWS BANCROFT BOLIVAR N P E A Pedestrian BANCROFT D N BERKELEY PIER Shorebird Park R O

ROOSEVELT A R Bridge MILVIA Corporation ORCHARD AM B DURANT IC ANC SEAWALL R MC KINLEY DURANT NCROFT FULTON O BA Yard F T POE D CHANNING WI CHAUCER CALIFORNIA G H

SPAULDING T EDWARDS

JEFFERSON CHANNING

MARTIN LUTHER KING J

I80 EAST BOWDITCH Becky Temko HASTE PROSPECT

4TH WEST

HASTE ATHERTON VALLEY Tot Park Alta Bates DWIGHT ACTON Herrick DANA People's Park

FERNWALD BYRON

FRONTAGE BLAKE URT CO

Aquatic Park

SOUTHERN PACIFIC

CHILTON Claremont CUTTER ETNA PARKER REGENT PIEDMONT UC Berkeley Canyon

WARRING SAN PABLO

HILLEGASS

SOUTH FULTON SW

I80 WEST Regional Preserve ACTON

MABEL CARLETON

MATHEWS ELLSWORTH

WALKER DERBY DERBY T A N A San Francisco Bay G A O FOREST S T, O IN, TON L T ON P CARLE GEE MC WARD E O A EM IS W O R R CALIFORNIA Willard Park Monkey NEWAL L, LA GARBER O C PARDEE Island Park O WALLACE D STUART STUART EN SILER O D O GRAYSON PARK E A

MABEL R G R T Y R A I R 0750 1,500 3,000 Feet REGENT AVALO VE LV RU STANTON N E A D OREGON Le Conte M DOHR SLATER A WALLACE

CHERRY

KELSEY San Pablo FLORENCE PINE School Park PIEDMONT TELEGRAPH RUSSELL GRAVA BENVENUE 3 G T Park Grove Park R T H A RUSSELL HOWE COLLEGE Ashby PARK I V

L A HEINZ STANTON T T L T DOHR N Y Place Park E , O O PERTH B DEAKIN W G LORINA E M A JULIA KING SUNSET E H OTIS L I A E W NEWBURY ASHBY M V S BURNETT R E IE ACTON S W I V W MABEL OO A D A V S T D L ) 9TH S ELMWOOD D N Malcolm X PINE C 5TH HONY E LINDEN DOMINGO P ANT N A Alta Bates A ASHBY WEBSTER A W MAGNOLIA R STANTON L M School Park EMERSON G Map is for illustrative purposes only V R A WEBSTER DOHR Halcyon Hospital HAZEL ADELINE O A G A R E A R O POTTER L K F Commons Park Oak , TYLER HARPER ESSEX DOWLING R A MARTIN LUTHER KING J C E F SACRAMENTO I T POTTER MURRAY Haskell-Mabel KVALE A D D E N W O Bateman OA Park M G V IC E ( PRINCE O I WHEELER

COLBY I Mini Park PRINCE N E V T ASHBY PRINCE Mall Park ACTON Prince Street O S A PRINCE DEAKIN BENVENUE D E N TH T E BRIDGE HASKELL TREMONT I PLAZA R U N DORIS, O BAY FOLGER Mini Park ELLIS N C E N A A W E WOOLSEY BENVENUE, OA N A L R 0 67TH WHITNEY, OA E L 8 REGENT, OA G I 67TH, OA WOOLSEY ETON PARKSIDE CITY OF BERKELEY 67TH, EM 66TH 66TH, OA BROOKSIDE

BOISE FAIRVIEW HARPER 66TH, OA 66TH, OA FAIRVIEW, OA

SAN PABLO,OA DOVER

DANA, OA DANA, S TH N D BAY, EM A LEWISTON HI M E LLC E UPL 66TH, E 65TH 65TH, OA U RE

) 65TH, OA OA COLBY, S Greg Brown OA TREMONT, C T Planning & Development Department F P 65TH, OA HARMON HILLEGASS,OA A R CH M Park L HILLER, OA O Y A R N ALCATRAZ, OA P LE ABOLYN, OA T HERZOG, OA O B R 65TH, EM MYSTIC, OA T A US F , 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley CA 94704 G ALCATRAZ BAKER O T EMERYVILLE RACINE, OA CHRISTIE, EM F A MANOR, OA O U E IDAHO R B VALLEJO, EM L N O C E ,

DOVER N ( MARKET, OA , 63RD, OA E A O BAKER, OA 63RD, OA E

M DOYLE, EM SHATTUCK, OA OCEAN, EM 63RD, OA N R T, OA A L S 63rd Street FLORIO, OA BO , N 63RD, OA HA 64TH, OA 63RD, OA O C (510) 981-7400 A OAKLAND O 62ND, OA I S N E Mini-Park A 62ND, OA 62ND, OA S

G 0 , C 62ND A 8 TH, EM 62ND , 62ND, OA O O A I , 64 62ND, OA OD 24 WE O O Y S 63RD, OA POIRIER, OA W A HW T LD

DOVER,OA R E 62ND, OA A A C M 61ST, OA TELEGRAPH, OA H O 64TH, E 61ST, OA TT

Source: City of Berkeley online Map Room, Parks Map 09012009, 2011

Berkeley Iceland Site

Figure III-1 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Project Vicinity Map SHATTUCK AVENUE SHATTUCK

2 6

3 MILVIA STREET MILVIA

DERBY STREET 1

WARD STREET 5

ADELINE STREET

Source: Google Earth, 2011.

Berkeley Iceland Site

Surrounding Uses

1 McKevitt Volvo Nissan 4 Schools

2 UC Berkeley Physical Plant 5 Residential

3 Sports Field, Berkeley Unified Schools 6 Berkeley Fire Station #5

Figure III-2 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Project Area Aerial Photograph BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2. Surrounding Land Uses

The site is generally bounded by Ward Street to the south, commercial uses (Vol- vo sales/service) and Shattuck Avenue to the east, Derby Street to the north, and Milvia Street to the west. The neighborhood that surrounds the project site is currently characterized as a mixture of commercial, residential, educational, and light industrial uses. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site include the King Child Development Center (an early childhood education center) and Berkeley Technology Academy (a continuation high school) immediately west, the East Campus Ball Fields to the northwest, University of California Berke- ley’s Physical Plant facility to the north, and single- and multi-family residential to the south. Shattuck Avenue and Adeline Street, major thoroughfares in Berkeley, are east of the site.

3. Existing General Plan and Zoning

The project site is designated Avenue Commercial (AC) by the Berkeley General Plan and South Area Commercial (C-SA) by the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance. Both the Avenue Commercial and the C-SA land use designations encourage pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development, including regional-serving commercial uses.

B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Project seeks to rehabilitate the 53,334- square-foot Berkeley Iceland building, which is a Streamline Moderne-style design City landmark building, and convert the building to commercial retail use. Specif- ically, the project seeks to:

1. Adaptively reuse, seismically retrofit, and to the extent feasible, rehabilitate the historic Iceland building in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Inte- rior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.

2. Provide additional off-street parking on the project site.

3. Provide sufficient square footage to make economically feasible the use of the building for the proposed retail use.

4. Renovate the building exterior and remove current blight (i.e., graffiti, broken windows) and preserve historic integrity.

5. Preserve the character defining features of the interior of the Iceland building, including the volume of the interior space, the metal truss structural system, and the interior mural.

6. Retrofit the building to meet current ADA standards

20 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

C. PROPOSED PROJECT 4. Building and Uses

The proposed project would repair and retain the existing exterior structure fa- cades, extend the northern and southern walls to grade level after removing the earthen berms located to the north and south of the existing building, and adapt and expand the internal space for retail functions. Parking and site improvements would be provided as shown in Figure III-3. The retail use involves recon- figuring the existing 53,334 square feet and constructing 18,528 square feet of new mezzanine area, as shown in Figure III-4. Once complete, the total 71,862 square feet of floor area would be occupied by a Sports Basement retail store. a. Building Interior Key elements of the proposed interior improvements include:

. Reuse of the 53,334-square-foot Berkeley Iceland structure;

. Construction of a new 18,528-square-foot mezzanine level along the north and south sides of the building that would be free-standing and could be easily removed;

. Encapsulation of the ice arena floor with concrete to meet the original lobby level of the building with preservation of the outline of the ice rink in a distinct finish to clearly illustrate the original rink area;

. Installation of an elevator to provide access from the main level (ice arena level) to the mezzanine level;

. Disassembly of the existing wood bleachers and reconstruction of two sections. Additional bleacher materials would be reused as raw materials for seating, countertops, fixtures, and/or other display elements;

. Removal of the berms that support the north and south walls of the existing structure to provide additional floor area;

. Preservation of the large, open interior volume, the interior Streamline Mo- derne-style details, and seismically strengthening of the metal truss structural system;

. Removal of the graffiti covering the interior of the building, including cleaning and repairing the winter mural located at the rear arena wall;

. Maintenance of the existing lobby/foyer area as the main store entrance;

. Conversion of the former skate rental area in the southwestern corner of the building to a meeting room that would be available for community space;

. Conversion of the northwestern corner of the building from utilitarian functions to use as the bicycle department;

21 Source: Nabi Construction & Engineering, 2011 Figure III-3 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Site Plan 1 1 0 2 ,g nire e nig n E & n oitc urts n o C ib a N :e cru o S Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Ground Floor Plan Figure III-4 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

. Adaptation of the former café/snack bar area immediately to the east (rear) of the main entrance for point of sale (POS) equipment while maintaining the existing interior window pattern surrounding that area; and

. Replacement of existing office, locker room and showering spaces on the east end of the structure with office space, staff areas, and a delivery/loading area. b. Building Exterior The structure’s reinforced concrete Streamline Moderne-style architectural details would be preserved as part of the adaptation of the building for commercial/retail use. However, the earthen berms would be removed and the existing northern and southern walls of the building would be extended down to the re- vised grade level. The new walls would have a distinct texture on the outside to illustrate the shadow line of the removed earthen berms (see Figure III-5). Land- scaping and parking areas would be created in the new flat areas along the north and south sides of the site as shown in Figure III-3. Additionally, a ramp that complies with applicable ADA standards would be installed from the parking areas to the main entrance.

The proposed project would replace the roof material with a new Thermoplastic Olefin (TPO) single-ply “cool roof”, install new sheathing and insulation, and possibly install solar panels to generate electricity for the building. The project would preserve and maintain the existing “Iceland” signage. The project would assume that all existing glazing is part of the historic fabric of the building and, where necessary, would replace broken and/or missing glass panels with “in kind” material. Where a specific window's frame is rusted or damaged beyond repair, those frames would be replaced with similarly constructed, in kind steel frames. The project would also remove the graffiti covering the exterior of the building.

No exterior additions are proposed outside the existing building footprint. The project elevation plans show textured concrete walls with architectural detailing on portions of the north and south elevations that imitate the outline of the removed berms.

5. Site Access and Parking

The project proposes to increase on-site vehicle parking from 16 spaces to 44 spaces with site improvements on the north and south sides of the building that would be accessed via a one-way driveway from Derby Street or Ward Street. In addition, there are 54 existing adjacent on-street parking spaces: 20 spaces on Derby Street, 10 spaces on Milvia Street, and 24 spaces on Ward Street. The project proposes to remove two spaces from Derby Street in order to accommodate a driveway at the northeast corner of the project site, leaving 18 spaces. An existing white zone (passenger loading) along Milvia Street located in front of the

24 1 1 0 2 ,g nire e nig n E & n oitc urts n o C ib a N :e cru o S Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Project Existing & Proposed Elevations Figure III-5 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION building’s main entrance would be removed and one additional parking space would be added, bringing the total spaces on Milvia Street to 11. A total of 24 existing parking spaces adjacent to the project site on Ward Street would remain. The changes to off-site parking spaces proposed by the project would result in 53 adjacent on-street parking spaces, one less than at present. These spaces are proposed to be metered spaces with a two-hour time limit and would be available to serve the project.

The two required truck-loading spaces and loading dock for the commercial use would be located on the southeastern corner of the building.

An additional 64 bicycle parking spaces would be added in the area adjacent to Milvia Street and an additional 40 employee bicycle spaces would be provided within the store. The project proposes to offer safe bike racks, free locks, and walk-in bike service for customers that choose to ride to the store.

6. Landscaping and Streetscape

Landscape improvements would include replanting of the existing raised beds located at the northwest and southwest corners of the site and the preservation or replacement of all existing street trees. The project would be required to implement street improvements adjacent to the project site in order to improve traffic circulation and bicycle and pedestrian safety, and to mitigate potentially significant impacts. The planned improvements are described in Section IV.C, Transportation and Circulation.

7. Transit Demand Management Measures

As part of the proposed project, Sports Basement is proposing several Transpor- tation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to support more efficient use of transportation resources, reducing vehicle trips and parking demand generated by the project. The following TDM measures would be implemented as part of the project:

. Customer Biking: The store would offer safe bike racks, free locks, and walk- in bike service to encourage customers to ride to the store. Additionally, Sports Basement is a “Commuter Check for Bicycling” partner, where customers can redeem their Commuter Checks for purchasing bike equipment to enable more bicycle travel. This would be beneficial in conjunction with the convenience to bicyclists of several streets around the projects site that are designated as Bike Boulevards.

. Staff Bike Commuting: In order to encourage staff bike commuting, Sports Basement would offer: – Bike parking, – Free mechanic work for all staff, – Shower facilities at the location, and – Substantial staff discounts to purchase bike and bicycle accessories.

26 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on information from other Sports Basement stores located in urban areas (Presidio and Bryant Streets), Sports Basement expects approximately 20 percent of the staff to bike to work on a daily basis.1

. Staff Mass Transit: Sports Basement would offer all staff the opportunity to purchase Clipper transit cards for all Bay Area mass transit with pre-tax dollars. This program saves staff 20 to 40 percent off mass transit expenses and significantly encourages the use of mass transit.

8. Construction Schedule

A construction start date has not yet been determined; once work has com- menced, the applicant anticipates completion of the work within 13 months. Ta- ble III-1 illustrates the anticipated flow and timing of each phase of construction. The intent is to have the building, landscape, and streetscaping completed within this 13-month time frame.

9. Demolition

The proposed project would retain the majority of the existing building, with the exception of the roof replacement and the removal of the external and internal earthen berms that undergird the north and south walls of the building. The exterior portion of the berms would be removed in order to provide additional off- street parking on the property. The interior portion of the berms and the bleachers are also proposed to be removed to allow the area to be used for retail space. A small section of the bleachers would be reconstructed as shown on the Floor Plan, included in Figure III-4, Ground Floor Plan. Removal of the exterior and interior berms would result in approximately 5,500 cubic yards of soil being hauled from the site.

D. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS

This EIR is intended to provide environmental review for all discretionary approvals and actions necessary for the project. A number of permits and approvals would be required before the development of the project could proceed. As Lead Agency for the proposed project, the City of Berkeley would be responsible for the majority of approvals required for development. Permits and approvals that may be required by the City and other agencies include, without limitation, those provided in Table III-2.

1 Based on information provided by the applicant about the San Francisco and Sunnyvale store locations.

27 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

TABLE III-1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN

Month

Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Interior Demolition & Salvage

Excavation & Shoring

Foundation, Forming & Pouring

Interior Excavation, Forming, & Pouring

Roofing

PG&E Service Install

Electrical Switchgear Install

Interior Concrete Slabs

Glazing

Interior Mezzanines

Sprinkler, Plumbing & Water

Electrical Distribution

Elevator Installation

Site Work, Landscape & Sidewalks

Exterior & Interior Lighting, Painting, Finishes Source: Iceland Adaptive Reuse for Sports Basement Major Phases of Project Construction, June 2011.

28 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Key discretionary actions required by the City of Berkeley are outlined below in Table III-2.

TABLE III-2 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS

Lead Agency Permit/Approval City of Berkeley . Use Permit for change of use greater than 5,000 . Zoning Adjustment Board square feet (§23E.52.030) . Landmarks Preservation . Use Permit for construction of greater than 3,000 Commission square feet of new gross floor area (§ 23E.52.030) . Administrative Use Permit to reduce the required off-street parking (§ 23E.28.130.C.2) . Structural Alterations Permit to modify a City Landmark (§ 3.24.200) . Other Administrative permits such as temporary and permanent encroachments, traffic management/construction parking, building demolition, etc., and approvals would be required from other City departments. Note: No other discretionary permits are anticipated to be required by other jurisdictions or agencies. Source: Urban Planning Partners, 2011.

29 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

30 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

This chapter contains an analysis of the environmental topics determined to be potentially significant in the Initial Study (see Appendix A) relevant to the Berke- ley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project. Sections IV.A through IV.C of this chapter describe the existing setting, the potential impacts that could result from construction and operation of the project, and mitigation measures intended to reduce significant impacts of the project to a less-than-significant level.

The following discussion provides an overview of the scope of the analysis included in this chapter, organization of the sections, and the methods for determining what impacts are significant.

ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS

The following environmental topics are analyzed in this chapter: A. Historic Resources B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions C. Transportation and Circulation

A brief discussion of the environmental topics addressed in the Initial Study (Appendix A) and focused out of this EIR is included in Chapter VI, CEQA Re- quired Assessment Conclusions, under the sub-heading VI.A, Effects Found Not to Be Significant. These topics include: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems. A summary of the impacts and standard conditions of approval for these topic areas, where applicable, are also provided in Table II-1B.

FORMAT OF TOPIC SECTIONS

Each topic section includes the following sub-sections:

. Setting. Provides a brief summary of the setting relevant to the environmental topic and related to the project site.

. Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Provides an analysis of each environmental topic in order to assess whether the Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project would result in significant impacts.

31 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.1 Each impact evaluation in this chapter is prefaced by criteria of significance, which are the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. These criteria have been developed using the CEQA Guidelines and applicable City policies. Identified significant impacts are numbered and shown in bold type with the following abbreviations, and the corresponding mitigation measures are numbered and indented.

HIST: Historic Resources GHG: Greenhouse Gas Emissions TRAF: Transportation and Circulation

The following notations are provided after each identified significant impact and mitigation measure:

SU = Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant

These notations indicate the significance of the impact with and without mitigation.

1 Public Resources Code Section 21083.

32 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

The purpose of this section is to: (1) describe the baseline conditions for historic resources of the Berkeley Iceland Reuse project area, (2) describe the legal significance of identified historic architectural resources within the project area, (3) identify potentially-significant impacts to such resources that may result from project implementation, and (4) recommend mitigations to reduce significant impacts.

Historic resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts that may have traditional, historic, or cultural value. Historic resources include a broad range of resources ranging from archaeological materials, to historic roadways and railroad tracks, to buildings of architectural or historical significance. Gener- ally, for a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (e.g., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or local landmark), it must be 50 years or older.1

CEQA requires that effects to historic resources be considered in the planning process for discretionary projects. The Initial Study analyzed archaeological and paleontological resources and concluded that the project’s archaeological and paleontological impacts would not be significant if the City of Berkeley’s Stand- ard Conditions of Approval (SCOAs) are implemented (see Appendix A). As a result, this section focuses on historic resources.

1. Historic Resources Setting

This section presents the results of the historic resources analysis conducted for the project area. The following sections provide: (a) regulatory setting, (b) methods of the analysis, (c) an overview of the area’s historical setting, (d) a description of the existing conditions of project area resources, and (e) an analysis of the project’s potential impacts to the identified resources. a. Regulatory Context The following describes the CEQA and the City of Berkeley Landmarks Preserva- tion Ordinance regulatory and policy requirements for historic resources.

(1) CEQA Requirements According to CEQA, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.”2 Substantial adverse change is defined as: “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its

1 California Office of Historic Preservation, 2006:3. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). Technical Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacra- mento. 2 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b).

33 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired.”3 The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance” and that justify or account for its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register.4 Thus, a project may cause a substantial change in a historic resource but still not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as defined by CEQA as long as the impact of the change on the historic resource is determined to be less-than-significant, negligible, neutral, or even beneficial.

A building may qualify as a historic resource if it falls within at least one of four categories listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a):

1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Re- sources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Re- sources (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).

2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, so- cial, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is sup- ported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of His- torical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Sec- tion 4852).

4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. 40

3 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(1). 4 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(2).

34 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

Berkeley Iceland is currently listed as a City of Berkeley Landmark, is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and has also been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, the building falls within Categories 2 and 3 and, therefore, qualifies as a historic resource under CEQA.

(2) City of Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Ordinance The City of Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Ordinance outlines the purposes, duties, and guidelines of the City of Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commis- sion (LPC), which manages the City’s local register of historic resources. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect, enhance, perpetuate, and use structures, sites and areas that are “reminders of past eras, events, persons important to local, state, or national history, or which provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past, or are landmarks in the history of architecture, or which are unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighborhoods, or which provide for this generation and future generations examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.” The Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Ordinance identifies three types of resource classifications: Land- marks, Historic Districts, and Structures of Merit.5

The LPC designated the Berkeley Iceland property as a City of Berkeley Landmark on April 4, 2007 (LM#06-40000008). The landmark designation was prepared by Save Berkeley Iceland, a non-profit organization. Berkeley Iceland was identified as a significant example of the Streamline Moderne style, and as the location of significant events in the history of the sport of figure skating. In 2010, Berkeley Iceland was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of His- toric Places (National Register) and was placed on the California Register of His- torical Resources (California Register) by the California Office of Historic Preser- vation.

A Structural Alteration Permit, issued by the LPC, is required for alterations to a historic structure. This review is subject to certain findings, including no adverse effect on the exterior architectural features of the landmark, or adverse effects on the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site, as viewed both in themselves and in their setting.6

5 Berkeley Municipal Code, Title 3 Boards, Commission and Committee, Chapter 3.24 Landmarks Preservation Commission, Section 3.21.010 Findings and purposes of provisions; 3.21.060. List of structures and sites--Landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit designated--Permit application review. Available at: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=13016, accessed June 25, 2010. 6 Berkeley Municipal Code Section 3.24.260.

35 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES b. Methods Background research for this historic resources analysis includes a records search, review of City of Berkeley Historic Landmarks in the vicinity, and consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and Native Ameri- can contacts identified by the NAHC. This research was conducted to identify cultural resources studies of, or cultural resources identified within, or immediately adjacent to the project area, and to prepare the archaeological, ethnographic, and historical setting of the project area. The results of the research relevant to historic resources is provided in Tables IV.A-1 and IV.A-2. (See the Initial Study (Appendix A) for results relevant to archaeological resources and consultation with Native Americans.)

(1) Records Search At the request of William Self Associates (WSA), the staff at the Northwest Infor- mation Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University conducted a records search for the project on July 14, 2011 (File No. 10-1218). The records search included a review of cultural resource and excavation reports and recorded cultural resources within a ½-mile radius of the Berkeley Iceland project area. The records search also included a review of the California Inventory of Historic Resources (March 1976) and the Office of Historic Preservation’s Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Alameda County (accessed 15 March 2011). The results of the records research relevant to historic resources are presented below. Other results were considered and summarized in the Initial Study for this project, contained in Appendix A of this EIR.

(2) Review of City of Berkeley Historic Landmarks in the Vicinity WSA staff compiled a record of City of Berkeley Historic Landmarks in the vicinity of Berkeley Iceland. The results are presented below. c. Historical Setting The historic period in the eastern San Francisco Bay region begins with the Fages-Crespi expedition of 1770. The Fages party explored the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay, eventually reaching the location of modern Fremont, where they traded with the local Costanoans. Members of the expedition eventually sighted the entrance to San Francisco Bay from the Oakland hills. In 1772, a second Fages expedition traveled from Monterey through what are now Milpitas, San Lorenzo, Oakland, and Berkeley, finally reaching the area of modern-day Pinole on March 28, 1772.7 In 1776, the Anza-Font expedition traveled through the same area and also traded with residents of native villages encountered along the way. The significant impact of the European presence on the local

7 Cook, Sherburne F., 1957. The Aboriginal Populations of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, University of California Anthropological Records, 16(4), page 131. Berkeley, CA.

36 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

California natives, however, was not felt until the Spanish missions were established in the region.

The first mission in the region was established the following year with the completion of Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission Dolores) in San Francisco. The ensuing Mission era proved to be the downfall of the native inhabitants of the region, who were brought to the missions as conscripts for labor under the pretense of Christianization. The missions became the loci of native missionization, which brought disease, subjugation, and ultimately decimation, to the native Californian groups. It is reported that by 1810, the traditional Costanoan lifestyle ceased to exist.8 Diseases introduced by the early expeditions and missionaries, and the contagions associated with the forced communal life at the missions, killed a large number of local peoples. Cook estimates that by 1832, the Costanoan population had been reduced from a high of over 10,000 in 1770 to less than 2,000.9

In 1817, Mission Dolores began using what would become the City of Berkeley to graze sheep.10 In 1820, Sergeant Luis Maria Peralta received a grant of 10 square leagues of land in the East Bay in recognition of his long, faithful military service in California. Peralta named his grant Rancho San Antonio. It comprised the land that lay from the water's edge to the crest of the Oakland hills between San Leandro Creek in the south and El Cerrito Creek in the north,11 completely encompassing modern-day Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, Piedmont, Albany, Alameda, and a portion of San Leandro.12

By 1822, Mexico had become free of Spanish rule, but did not give much attention to its frontier lands, thereby allowing the Alta California culture to develop independently and become distinctive. Residents began using the barter system to trade cattle hides and tallow for manufactured goods with foreign trading vessels.13

In 1842, Peralta formally divided his holdings among his four sons. Jose Domingo Peralta, the second oldest son of Luis Peralta, received the

8 Levy, Richard, 1978. Costanoan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, Robert F. Heizer, editor, page 486. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 9 Cook, Sherburne F., 1943. The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. Ibero-Americana, 22. Berkeley, CA. 10 Schwartz, Richard, 2000. Berkeley 1900: Daily Life at the Turn of the Century. RSB Books, page 1. Berkeley, CA. 11 Hendry, George W. and Jacob N. Bowman, 1940. The Spanish and Mexican adobe and other buildings in the nine San Francisco Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850, page 585. Ms. on file at the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. 12 Sher, Sandra, 1994. The Native Legacy of Emeryville. The Journal of the Emeryville Historical Society 5(2), page 6. 13 Schwartz, Richard, op. cit.

37 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES northernmost section of his father’s land that encompassed Berkeley. He grazed cattle on these lands.14

Following the U.S. seizure of Alta California from Mexico in 1846, rancho lands were divided up and generally were subsequently overrun by the Anglo immigration to the area coinciding with the land boom following the Gold Rush of 1849. By 1852, Jose Domingo Peralta’s land was also being grabbed up by squatters, and his herds were dwindling due to poachers.15 Rancho San Antonio suffered the fate of most Mexican land grants in northern California, with squatters taking quasi-legal title to lands, and the courts denying title to the original grantees.16

In 1852, William Hillegass, James Leonard, Francis Kittredge Shattuck, and Shattuck’s brother-in-law, George Blake, filed claims to a square mile of land in the central section of what is now Berkeley. In 1853, Jose Domingo Peralta was forced to sell the majority of his estate to several groups of investors. These investors split the property into lots and quickly resold them. Some of the land Peralta sold to developers eventually became sites of the state college, numerous farms, and Berkeley’s first freight wharf at the foot of Delaware Street.17

In 1855, the College of California was created and began searching for a new campus location. Captain Orrin Simmons offered up his lands for possible consideration of the new location of the college, and soon after, in 1860, the trustees of the college decided to locate the campus in the hills surrounding Strawberry Creek. By 1864, the College of California had purchased an area of land from Simmons. In 1866, the name “Berkeley” was officially adopted by the Trustees of the college for the residential academic community that they hoped would grow around the college.18

In the mid-1860’s, California Governor F.F. Low chose Berkeley as the new site for an Agriculture, Mining and Mechanical Arts College, under the 1862 Morrill Land Grant Act. The University was to be built next to the College of California site.19 In 1867, during the College of California commencement, Governor Low

14 Judd, D.R., 1984. Early Days in Temescal. Oakland Heritage Alliance Newsletter. 4(1):1-6. Schwartz, op.cit., page 2. 15 Ibid. 16 Hendry & Bowman, op. cit. 17 Cerny, Susan Dinkenspiel, 1994. Berkeley Landmarks. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley, CA. 18 Ferrier, William Warren, 1933. Berkeley, California: The Story Of The Evolution Of A Hamlet Into A City of Culture and Commerce, page 101. William W. Ferrier, Berkeley, CA. Page & Turnbull, 2011. Berkeley Iceland Historic Resource Evaluation. Prepared for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, San Francisco, CA. Available at http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_ZAB/2011-03- 10_RESUB_Historic%20Resource%20Eval%20Final_2727%20MIlvia.pdf, accessed June 1. 19 Ferrier, op. cit., Page & Turnbull, op. cit.

38 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES proposed to merge the college with the new proposed University. As a result, the college dissolved on October 7, 1867. The assets of the College of California were given to the State for the new University with the stipulation that the new school include a College of Letters for the study of liberal arts and the humanities. Upon agreement with the State, the University of California was formed on March 23, 1868 by the signing of the Organic Act by California Governor Henry H. Haight. The University of California officially moved from Oakland to Berkeley in September 1873.

Because of the lack of transportation, the Berkeley campus was slow to grow. By 1872, only the slow-moving horse-drawn streetcar had been extended to Berkeley from Oakland. However, in 1876, the railroad arrived in Berkeley with a station at the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Center Street. By 1877, trains became connected to San Francisco via ferry, and, in 1878, cross-country trains were connected to the Berkeley station. Due to the arrival of the transcontinental railroad, the small epicenter of Berkley moved from Telegraph Avenue closer to Shattuck Avenue.20 On April 1, 1878, the Town of Berkeley was officially incorporated, combining the bayside manufacturing settlement of Ocean View, which is now West Berkeley, with the small academic area of the University. The influx of supplies and commodities increased, and more people began inhabiting the town. Berkeley’s 19th-century downtown evolved as a district of modest wood- frame buildings ranging from one to three stories in height. The blocks east of Shattuck Avenue contained a mix of uses and remained in a quasi-rural state for much longer than the land south and west of Shattuck. By 1900, houses began replacing farms, and approximately 15,000 people lived in Berkeley, a marked increase from the 12 individuals who were recorded in the census during the time of Domingo Peralta.21

During the early twentieth century, especially after the 1906 Earthquake and before the Great Depression, both the town of Berkeley and the University of California grew rapidly. After 1906, Berkeley became one of the largest cities in California, mostly as a result of an influx of 20,000 San Francisco earthquake refugees. The construction of the Key System of ferry boats and streetcars made transportation between Oakland, Berkeley and San Francisco quick and affordable and spurred the development of residential tracts in Berkeley. This, in turn, spurred intensive commercial development in downtown Berkeley. As a result, downtown Berkeley developed into a substantial urban district with numerous, large, masonry buildings and impressive public facilities. The new buildings included a new City Hall, public library, train station, and high school.22

20 Ferrier, op. cit., page 118. 21 Page & Turnbull, op. cit. Schwartz, op. cit., page 2. 22 Ferrier, op. cit., page 101. Page & Turnbull, op. cit.

39 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES d. History of the Berkeley Iceland Building A small two-story, wood-frame single-family dwelling stood on Derby Street on the east half of the block before the construction of the Berkeley Iceland. The remainder of the block was vacant, and the surrounding blocks were sparsely developed because the area was south of the City’s commercial center. In 1939, a committee of Bay Area citizens announced plans to construct a world-class ice skating rink called “East Bay Iceland.” The ice rink was intended to be a 6,000- seat stadium that would be the largest purpose-built ice rink in the west. The estimated cost for the project was $300,000 to be privately financed by the local community. Berkeley Iceland was built in 1940 by architect William Clement Ambrose, structural engineer Thomas Franklin Chace, and builder W. A. Bechtel Co.23

Berkeley Iceland’s Streamline Moderne-style design was intended to include the most modern equipment and amenities. The design centered on a well-lit and air conditioned arena with a 90-foot x 200-foot ice surface. The ice rink was excavated from the center of the site and the displaced dirt was used to create berms on the north and south edges of the property to support the building’s concrete pier foundations. It is likely that the berms were employed to save time and money during construction and to facilitate egress from the facility.24 Berkeley Iceland opened to the public on November 1, 1940. It was purchased in 1956 by Frank Zamboni and became one of the West Coast’s most significant ice skating facilities. Several internationally recognized skating coaches worked at Iceland and a number of Bay Area champion skaters including Olympic gold medalists Peggy Flemming, Brian Boitano, and Kristi Yamaguchi trained at the rink. The rink has also been the site of several notable skating events such as the first U.S. National Figure Skating Championships held west of the Mississippi in 1947, and again in 1957 and 1966. However, the declining popularity of ice skating and increasing maintenance costs at the rink eventually forced the closure of the Berkeley Iceland in 2007.25 e. Existing Conditions The existing historic resource conditions for this project are described below.

(1) Records Search Results There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area. In addition, there are no previously recorded archaeological sites within ½-mile of the project area, although three cultural resources have been recorded within ½- mile (Table IV.A-1). They include the Webb Building, the A.L. Ancienne Building, and the former Students’ Express and Transfer Company building, all built between ca. 1905 and 1922. The closest of these buildings is the former Students’

23 Page & Turnbull, op. cit. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.

40 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

TABLE IV.A-1 CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDED WITHIN ½-MILE OF THE BERKELEY ICELAND PROJECT AREA

Cultural/Temporal NRHP Status Site No. Site Type/Constituents Affiliation(s) Code A.L. Ancienne Building; located Historic; constructed P-01-010727 6D/5D3 at 1979 Ashby Avenue ca. 1905-1907 Webb Building; located at 1985 Historic; constructed P-01-005144 3S Ashby Avenue ca. 1905 Students’ Express and Transfer Historic; constructed P-01-011052 Company Building; located at 6 1922 2721 Shattuck Avenue Source: William Self Associates, 2011.

Express and Transfer Company Building, located one block southeast of the project area at 2721 Shattuck Avenue. Due to the distance between these historic resources and the subject property, the proposed project would not affect the historic integrity or character of any of these buildings. See the Initial Study for additional detail regarding records search results relevant to archaeological resources.

(2) City of Berkeley Historic Landmarks The project site is located within ½-mile of several buildings designated as landmarks by the City of Berkeley, as listed in Table IV.A-2, below. The nearest designated City Landmark, the Frederick H. Dakin Warehouse, is located at 2750 Adeline Street, approximately one block south of the site. Due to the distance between these historic resources and the subject property, the proposed project would not affect the historic integrity or character of any of these buildings. f. Historical Architectural Resources The existing building on the project site, constructed in 1940, was listed as a City of Berkeley landmark in 2007. In 2010, Berkeley Iceland was also determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and listed on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criteria A/1 (Events) and C/3 (Design/Construction) by the California Office of Historic Preservation.

The applicant contracted with the firm of Page & Turnbull to determine the proposed project’s potential effect on the historical significance of the Berkeley Iceland property under CEQA (See Appendix B).

Page & Turnbull determined that the property was considered a historic resource for the purposes of review under CEQA and that the proposed project at Berkeley Iceland would “largely” comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, although the planned removal of the packed earth berms reduces

41 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

TABLE IV.A-2 CITY OF BERKELEY HISTORIC LANDMARKS IN THE VICINITY

Date of Building Name Location Proximity to Project Site Construction Historic Status Frederick H. Dakin Warehouse 2750 Adeline St. One block south of project site 1906 City of Berkeley Landmark City of Berkeley Structure of The Hoffman Building 2988 Adeline St. Four blocks south of project site 1905 Merit The William Clephane Corner Store 3027 Adeline St. Six blocks south of project site 1905 City of Berkeley Landmark 2201-2207 Blake Three blocks north, two blocks east of Barlett Property 1877 City of Berkeley Landmark St. project site One block north, three blocks east of Woodworth House 2237 Carleton St. 1905 City of Berkeley Landmark project site Boone’s University School 2029 Durant Ave. Seven blocks north of project site 1880 City of Berkeley Landmarks Seven blocks north, two blocks east of Howard Automobile Company 2140 Durant Ave. 1930 City of Berkeley Landmark project site Four blocks north, one block east of pro- Williamson Building 2120 Dwight Way 1905 City of Berkeley Landmark ject site. Four blocks north, one block east of pro- Williams Building 2126 Dwight Way 1902 City of Berkeley Landmark ject site. Four blocks north, one block east of pro- Davis/Byrne Building 2134 Dwight Way 1895 City of Berkeley Landmark ject site. Four blocks north, three blocks east of Benjamin Ferris 2314 Dwight Way 1868 City of Berkeley Landmark project site. Five blocks north, two blocks east of pro- Northern Bertha Bosse Cottage 2424 Fulton St. 1884 City of Berkeley Landmark ject site Five blocks north, two blocks east of pro- Southern Bertha Bosse Cottage 2426 Fulton St. 1884 City of Berkeley Landmark ject site Five blocks north, two blocks east of pro- Kueffer House 2430 Fulton St. 1891 City of Berkeley Landmark ject site Four blocks south, two blocks east of Josiah J Rose – Goldsmith House 2919 Lorina St. 1891 City of Berkeley Landmark project site Webb House 1301 Otis St. Four blocks south of project site 1904 City of Berkeley Landmark Three blocks south, one block east of City of Berkeley Structure of Church By The Side of the Road 2108 Russell St. 1908 project site Merit Corder Bldg. 2300 Shattuck Ave. Seven blocks north of project site 1921 City of Berkeley Landmark

42 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

TABLE IV.A-2 CITY OF BERKELEY HISTORIC LANDMARKS IN THE VICINITY (CONTINUED)

Date of Building Name Location Proximity to Project Site Construction Historic Status Six blocks north, one block east of pro- Wallace Clark Building 2375 Shattuck Ave. 1894 City of Berkeley Landmark ject site Five blocks north, one block east of pro- Morrill Apartments 2429 Shattuck Ave. 1911 City of Berkeley Landmark ject site Four blocks north, one block east of pro- Barker Building 2484 Shattuck Ave. 1905 City of Berkeley Landmark ject site 2740 Telegraph One block south, four blocks east of pro- Marshall Mansion – Gramma’s Inn unknown City of Berkeley Landmark Ave. ject site 2744 Telegraph One block south, four blocks east of pro- Marshall Mansion – Fay House unknown City of Berkeley Landmark Ave. ject site Source: William Self Associates, 2011.

43 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES the project’s compliance with Standard 2 and Standard 9. Standard 2 states that “the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.” Standard 9 states that “new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.”

Page & Turnbull concluded that the majority of Berkeley Iceland’s character- defining features would be retained by the proposed project, and because no changes are proposed to the building’s footprint, massing, large arena volume, or Streamline Moderne-style details, Berkeley Iceland would still retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance as a purpose-built Streamline Moderne-style ice skating rink, as well as its role in the expansion of the sport of figure skating on the West Coast.26 Because the proposed project is largely compliant with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and would not affect the eligibility of Berkeley Iceland for listing in any local, State, or national historical registers, Page & Turnbull concluded that it does not appear to cause a significant adverse impact under CEQA.27

William Self Associates (WSA) was retained by the City of Berkeley to peer review the Page & Turnbull study and concurred with Page & Turnbull’s conclusion that the removal of the packed earth berms on the north and south sides of the building would reduce the project’s compliance with Standard 2 and Standard 9 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. WSA stated that the project would be largely compliant with the Standards despite the berms’ removal, however, it would not be fully compliant. In addition, removal of the berms could negatively impact the historic setting of the building, although, in their current poor condition, the berms already detract from the building’s historic setting and feel. Nonetheless, WSA concurred that Berkeley Iceland could retain sufficient integrity with project development to convey its significance as a purpose- built Streamline Moderne-style ice skating rink as well as its role in the expansion of the sport of figure skating on the West Coast, and that its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, its listing on the California Reg- ister of Historical Resources, and its designation as a City of Berkeley landmark should not be compromised.

WSA’s concurrence was based on the following factors: (1) the packed earth berms do not contribute to the Streamline Moderne styling of the building, (2) the packed earth berms are representative of a construction method employed by the builders of Berkeley Iceland and not as a design feature of the building,

26 Page and Turnbull, 2011. Berkeley Iceland Historic Resource Evaluation. March. 27 Ibid.

44 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

(3) Berkeley Iceland’s significance under Criteria C/3 (Design/Construction) is based on the building’s architectural merit and not construction methods, (4) the use of packed earth berms at Berkeley Iceland does not appear to have been a pioneering or influential use of this building practice, (5) in their current condition the berms negatively impact the historic feel and setting of the building, and (6) the new surface parking would still preserve Berkeley Iceland’s setback from the street and the open character of the surrounding landscape.

While WSA concurred with Page & Turnbull’s findings, WSA recognized that there would be negative impacts to the building. The City of Berkeley, as the lead agency, has determined that removal of the earthen berms as a result of the project may result in a potentially significant adverse effect. As a result, the following mitigation measures and consideration of a project alternative are presented below.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This section analyzes the impact related to historic resources that would result from implementation of the proposed project. a. Thresholds of Significance CEQA Guidelines require that the project consider the significance of an under- taking’s impacts to historical resources under CEQA criteria (Section 15064.5). To properly evaluate the significance of impacts to such resources it is necessary to evaluate each resource in terms of the significance criteria contained in the CEQA Guidelines. Generally, a resource shall be considered to be “historically significant” by the lead agency if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852). All significant resources must meet at least one of these basic criteria:

(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;

(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

(C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Even if a resource does not meet these criteria, it does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

45 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

Thresholds of significance are criteria used to determine if the project creates damaging effects to cultural resources. Appendix G in the CEQA Guidelines provides the minimum “thresholds of significance” for impact assessment during the required CEQA review, and has been used as a standard for impact analysis. The- se guidelines are described in more detail in Section 15064.5b of the CEQA guidelines which states:

Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate setting such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired. The significance of resources is materially impaired when a project:

(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or

(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or

(C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

According to CEQA Section 15064.5, generally, a project that follows the Secre- tary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), shall be considered mitigated to a level that is a less-than-significant impact to the cultural resource.

A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. b. Significant Historic Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures As discussed above, the City of Berkeley has determined that in removing the earthen berms, the proposed project would have a potentially significant adverse effect related to historic resources.

46 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

Impact HIST-1: The City of Berkeley has determined that a significant impact would occur to the historic setting of the existing Berkeley Iceland structure if the earthen berms are removed as part of project construction. (S)

Mitigation Measure HIST-1: It is recommended that the historic feeling that would be affected by the berms’ removal be replicated to the extent possible through creation of a silhouette on the walls that would be constructed once the berms are removed that would depict the height and shape of the berms that once existed in those locations. This silhouette could be accented by a change in materials, patterns/texturing color, or other techniques. These techniques would mitigate but not fully compensate for the loss of the berms, and would result in a significant unavoidable impact to the historic resource based on the loss of integrity according to the landmark nomination forms. (SU)

47 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

48 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1. Introduction

This section presents the results of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assessment conducted for the proposed Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Project in the City of Berkeley. This analysis was conducted by Illingworth and Rodkin following Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidance. GHG emissions were computed for construction and operation of the project and were evaluated for year 2020. The URBEMIS2007 model was used to compute daily and annual air pollutant emissions, then these files were post-processed with the BAAQMD’s Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM). The results are provided in Appendix D.

2. Setting

This subsection provides a brief description of climate, air quality conditions, and typical sources of GHG emissions in the region. An overview of current regulations of GHG emissions at the federal, State, and local level, including local policies, plans, and programs is also provided. a. Greenhouse Gases Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic- generated (generated by mankind) atmospheric gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.1 Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called GHGs. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed at the surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space as infrared radiation. GHGs, which are mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation and redirecting some of it back to the earth’s surface. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This is known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect maintains a habitable climate. Emissions of GHGs from human activities, such as electricity production, motor vehicle use and agriculture are elevating the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, and are reported to have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Other than water vapor, the GHGs contributing to global warming include the following gases:

1 IPCC, 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/.

49 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

. Carbon dioxide, which is primarily a byproduct of fuel combustion.

. Nitrous oxide is a byproduct of fuel combustion and also associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops.

. Methane is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., livestock), wastewater treatment, and landfill operations.

. Chlorofluorocarbons were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents but their production has been mostly reduced by international treaty.

. Hydrofluorocarbons are now used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration and cooling.

. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to the greenhouse effect both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs outgoing radiation. Indirect effects occur when gases cause chemical reactions that produce other GHGs or prolong the existence of other GHGs. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) concept is used to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to carbon dioxide (CO ), which is the most 2 abundant GHG. CO has a GWP potential of one, expressed as CO . Other GHGs, 2 2e such as methane and nitrous oxide are commonly found in the atmosphere but at much lower concentrations. The GWP for methane is 21, while nitrous oxide has a GWP of 310. Other trace gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which are halocarbons that contain chlorine, have much greater GWPs. Fortunately, these gases are found at much lower concentrations and many are being phased out as a result of global efforts to reduce destruction of stratospheric ozone. In the United States, CO emissions 2 account for about 85 percent of the CO emissions, followed by methane at 2e about 8 percent and nitrous oxide at about 5 percent.2

The world’s leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway, is “very likely” caused by humans, and warmer temperatures and rises in sea level “would continue for centuries,” no matter how much humans control future emissions. A report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of scientists and representatives concludes that, “The widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without

2 US Environmental Planning Agency (US EPA), 2008. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2006. April.

50 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.”3

Human activities have exerted a growing influence on some of the key factors that govern climate by changing the composition of the atmosphere and by modifying vegetation. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for energy production and transportation and the removal of forests and woodlands around the world to provide space for agriculture and other human activities. Emissions of other GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also increased due to human activities. Since the Industrial Revolution (circa 1750), global atmospheric concentrations of CO have risen about 36 percent due primarily to the 2 combustion of fossil fuels.4

The IPCC predicts a temperature increase of between 2 and 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius) by the end of the 21st century under six different scenarios of emissions and CO concentrations.5 Sea levels are 2e predicted to rise by 0.18 to 0.59 meters (7 to 23 inches) during this time, with an additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches possible depending upon the rate of polar ice sheets melting from increased warming. The IPCC report states that the increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 can likely be attributed to human-generated GHGs. b. Regulatory Efforts to Address Global Climate Change Global climate change resulting from GHG emissions is an emerging environmental concern being raised and discussed at the international, national, State, and local level. At each level, agencies are considering strategies to reduce emissions of gases that contribute to global warming.

(1) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The United States participates in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing rulemaking to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Plan.6

3 IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. February 2. Available at: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html. 4 IPCC, 2007. Op Cit., Summary for Policymakers. 5 Ibid. 6 On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which holds that the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate GHG emissions from new vehicles. The US EPA had previously argued it lacked legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHGs. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court decision noted that greenhouse gases meet the Clean Air Act’s definition of an “air pollutant,” and the EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles.

51 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

As part of the commitments to UNFCCC, the US EPA has developed an inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all GHGs. This inventory is periodically updated with the latest update being 2009.7 EPA reports that total US emissions have risen by 7.3 percent from 1990 to 2009 to 6,633 million metric tons (MMT) of CO per year, while emissions decreased by 6.1 2e percent from 2008 to 2009. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in economic output (resulting in lower energy consumption) and a decrease in the carbon density of fuels used to generate electricity. The inventory notes that the electric power industry is the highest emitter by economic sector at 33 percent. The transportation sector emits about 27 percent of CO emissions, with 60 2e percent of those emissions coming from personal automobile use. Residential uses, primarily from energy use, account for 20 percent of CO emissions. 2e

As a part of US EPA’s responsibility to develop and update an inventory of US GHG emissions EPA compared data trends within the US. Over the period between 1990 and 2009, GHG emissions grew at a rate of about 0.4 percent per year. Population growth was higher at 1.1 percent, while electricity consumption growth was at 1.5 percent and fossil fuel use grew 0.5 percent. Gross domestic product grew at a much higher rate of 2.5 percent.

(2) State of California The State of California is concerned about GHG emissions and their effect on global climate change. The State recognizes that “there appears to be a close relationship between the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere and global temperatures” and that “the “evidence for climate change is overwhelming.” The effects of climate change on California, in terms of how it would affect the ecosystem and economy, remain uncertain. The State has many areas of concern regarding climate change with respect to global warming. According to the 2006 Climate Action Team Report,8 the following climate change effects and conditions can be expected in California over the course of the next century:

. A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70 percent to 90 percent, threatening the State’s water supply;

. Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F) under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 to 35 percent increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas;

7 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2011. 2011 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas E3missions and Sinks: 1990-2009. (April 2011) USEPA #430-R-11-005. 8 California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Available at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF.

52 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

. Coastal erosion along the length of California and seawater intrusion into the Sacramento River Delta from a 4- to 33-inch rise in sea level. This would exacerbate flooding in already vulnerable regions;

. Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures;

. Increased challenges for the State’s important agricultural industry from water shortages, increasing temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into the Delta; and

. Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months.

California emissions of GHG gases or CO emissions were estimated at 484 MMT 2e of CO emissions, which is about seven percent of the emissions from the entire 2e United States.9 It is estimated that the United States contributes up to 35 percent of the world’s CO emissions. Transportation is the largest source of GHG 2e emissions in California, contributing about 40 percent of the emissions. Electricity generation is second at over 20 percent, but California does import electricity during the summer, bringing energy sources up to about 25 percent. Industrial activities account for about 20 percent of the State’s emissions.10 On a per-person basis, GHG emissions are lower in California than most other states; however, California is the most populous state and the second largest emitter of GHGs in the United States.11

State of California Executive Order S-3-05 In June 2005, the Governor of California signed Executive Order S-3-05, which identified California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) as the lead coordinating State agency for establishing climate change emission reduction targets in California. A Climate Action Team – a multi-agency group of State agencies – was set up to implement Executive Order S-3-05. Under this order, the State plans to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. GHG emission reduction strategies and measures to reduce global warming were identified by the California Climate Action Team in 2006.12

Assembly Bill (AB) 32 In 2006, the Governor of California signed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, into legislation. The Act requires that California cap its GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. This legislation requires CARB to establish a program for statewide GHG emissions reporting and monitoring/enforcement of that

9 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2008. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan. June. 10 California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2006, Op Cit. 11 California Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2006. Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill (Governor’s Climate Change Initiative). Available at: http://www.lao.ca.gov/ analysis_2006/resources/res_04_anl06.html. 12 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2006, Op Cit.

53 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS program. In 2007, CARB published a list of discrete GHG reduction measures that can be implemented immediately. CARB is currently developing rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. CARB’s Early Action Plan identified regulations and measures that could be implemented in the near future to reduce GHG emissions.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 Much of the measures to reduce GHG emissions from transportation will come from CARB. AB 1493, the Pavley Bill, directed CARB to adopt regulations to reduce emissions from new passenger vehicles. CARB’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Early Action Plan released in 2007 included a strengthening of the Pavley regulation for 2017 and included a commitment to develop a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). In April 2009, CARB adopted the new LCFS aimed at diversifying the variety of fuels used for transportation. This regulation is designed to increase the use of alternative fuels, replacing 20 percent of the fuel used by cars in California with clean alternative fuels by 2020. These fuels include electricity, biofuels, and hydrogen.

Under a “business as usual” scenario, emissions of GHG in California are estimated to increase to approximately 600 MMT of CO by 2020. California Air 2e Resources Board (CARB) staff has estimated the 1990 statewide emissions level to be 427 MMT of CO . 2e

CARB updated the future 2020 forecast in light of the economic downturn and updated the 2020 projected annual emissions to 545 MMT of CO . Two GHG 2e emissions reduction measures currently enacted that were not previously included in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory were included, further reducing the baseline inventory to 507 MMT of CO . Thus, an estimated 2e reduction of 80 MMT of CO is necessary to reduce statewide emissions to meet 2e the AB 32 target by 2020.

CARB is relying on increased fuel efficiency to reduce GHG emissions substantially. California had proposed a State standard to increase the fuel economy of new cars. In addition, the new federal standards proposed would apply to new vehicles sold beginning in 2012, and ultimately require an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2016. This surpasses the previous 2007 standard of 35 mpg for 2020 model vehicles established in 2007. The State of California requested a waiver from the US EPA to enforce GHG standards for new motor vehicles in December 2005. On June 30, 2009, the US EPA announced that it would grant California’s request, enabling the State to enforce these GHG standards for new motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year.

54 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

CARB is targeting other sources of emissions. The main measures to reduce GHG emissions were contained in the AB 32 Scoping Plan that was approved in late 2008. This plan included a range of GHG reduction actions. Central to the draft plan is a cap and trade program covering 85 percent of the State's emissions. This program will be developed in conjunction with the Western Climate Initiative, comprised of seven states and three Canadian provinces, to create a regional carbon market. However, this plan is not currently being implemented as it is undergoing CEQA review. The plan also proposes that utilities produce a third of their energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal, and proposes to expand and strengthen existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards. The plan also includes full implementation of the Pavley standards to provide a wide range of less polluting and more efficient cars and trucks to consumers who will save on operating costs through reduced fuel use. It also calls for development and implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which will require oil companies to make cleaner domestic-produced fuels. The regulatory process began in 2009 to implement the plan. The details in regulating emissions and developing targeted fees to administer the program will be developed through this process. This will last two years and measures must be enacted by 2012.

Title 24 – California Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2008 California Green Building Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 11) went into effect in 2009.

Senate Bill 375 In 2008, California enacted legislation (SB 375) to expand the efforts of AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG emissions caused by urban sprawl. SB 375 develops emissions-reduction goals that regions can apply in planning activities. SB 375 provides incentives for local governments and developers to implement new conscientiously planned growth patterns. This includes incentives for creating attractive, walkable, and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities. The legislation also allows developers to bypass certain environmental reviews under CEQA if they build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. Development of more alternative transportation options that reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, along with traffic congestion, are encouraged. SB 375 enhances CARB’s ability to reach the AB 32 goals by directing the agency in developing regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from the transportation sector for 2020 and 2035. CARB will work with the metropolitan planning organizations (e.g., ABAG and MTC) to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and demonstrate the region's ability to attain

55 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS its GHG reduction targets. A similar process is used to reduce transportation emissions of ozone precursor pollutants in the Bay Area.

California’s Heavy Duty Vehicle GHG Reduction Measure On December 12, 2008 (one day after adopting the AB 32 Climate Action Plan), CARB adopted the Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measure that requires long-haul truckers to install fuel efficient tires and aerodynamic devices on their trailers. This measure will reduce GHG emissions through improved fuel economy.

At the direction of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CARB is currently developing statewide interim thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. CARB is focusing on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial GHG emissions – specifically industrial, residential, and commercial projects.

(3) City of Berkeley In 2006, Berkeley voters endorsed ballot Measure G, which was a City mandate to reduce the entire community’s GHG emissions by 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. The ballot measure directed the City to develop a Climate Action Plan to achieve that target. In 2009, the City Council adopted the Berkeley Climate Action Plan, which is the result of the community-based climate action campaign that the Berkeley voters set in motion. The plan focuses on reducing emissions through 2020. The 2020 target is to achieve a 33 percent absolute reduction below 2000 community-wide emissions levels, which equates to about a two percent reduction per year in total community-wide emissions. This reduction exceeds goals of the statewide scoping plan developed to implement AB-32, the Global Warming Solutions Act.

3. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This section analyzes the impacts related to GHG that could result from implementation of the project. The section begins with criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds for determining whether a project impact is significant based on the State CEQA Guidelines: environmental checklist questions (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines). The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with the project and identifies mitigation measures, as appropriate. a. Thresholds of Significance Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist) contains a list of effects that may be considered significant. The proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment if it were to:

56 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or

. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The BAAQMD recently adopted thresholds for evaluating GHG emissions from projects and plans and developed guidelines for assessing these impacts.13,14 The thresholds include an emissions threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO per year 2e or an emission efficiency metric of 4.6 tons of CO per year per service 2e population, which is the sum of new residents and full time workers.

The Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Project would generate GHG emissions both during project construction and operation. In accordance with the BAAQMD updated CEQA guidance, a project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change if the project exceeds the BAAQMD annual emissions threshold for operational-related GHG emissions. No one single project could generate an amount of GHG emissions that would result in global climate change; however, individual projects can collectively emit GHGs that contribute to a cumulatively significant impact.

(1) GHG Emissions Analysis Methodology The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide guidance for calculating project emissions. GHG emissions for the proposed project associated with area sources, mobile sources, and electricity usage were computed as recommended by BAAQMD. The emissions from area and mobile source were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model, as recommended by BAAQMD. In order to provide an estimate of CO2e emissions for a project, BAAQMD developed the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM) that processes the completed URBEMIS2007 output. In addition, BAAQMD recommends computing GHG emissions from solid waste, although solid waste emissions are not factored into BAAQMD’s GHG significance threshold. BGM also provides emissions generated from solid waste.

URBEMIS2007 is a computer model developed by the CARB to estimate air pollutant emissions from land use developments. The model predicts emissions from construction activities, area sources, and traffic associated with the project. The model uses the latest statewide emission inventory models for mobile sources (EMFAC2007) and construction equipment (OFFROAD2007). The model is periodically updated to reflect the most recent emission estimates for source types and incorporate accuracies in estimating emissions from land use

13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds of Significance. June. 14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.

57 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS activities. The latest version of this model (Version 9.2.4) was used for this analysis. BGM is then used with the URBEMIS2007 modeling to provide operational GHG emissions.

(2) Construction Period Emissions The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions, but recommends calculating the emissions and disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction. BAAQMD encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable. Best management practices may include, but are not limited to: using alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment for at least 15 percent of the fleet; using at least 10 percent local building materials; and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.

The URBEMIS2007 modeling conducted for the air quality analysis for the project provided the estimate of construction GHG emissions in the form of CO . Since 2 much of the project construction would involve renovation of an existing building, the construction emissions for the project computed by URBEMIS2007 are likely to be overestimated since the model assumes new construction. Emissions associated with construction were assumed to occur over the period 2012 through 2013. Construction equipment, truck traffic and associated construction worker traffic for the project would emit up to 249 (257 U.S. tons) metric tons of CO2. As stated previously, the BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions during a project’s construction period, however, for purposes of analysis, these results were conservatively compared to the BAAQMD operational threshold of 1,100 annual metric tons and determined that they would contribute a relatively small amount to GHG emissions, and would have a less-than-significant impact for the construction period.

(3) Operation Period Greenhouse Gas Emissions The URBEMIS2007 modeling input for the year 2020 was used in the BGM model. The GHG emissions were modeled for year 2020 for consistency with AB 32 targets used by BAAQMD to develop GHG significance thresholds. Inputs to the modeling are described below.

The project size, type, and trip generation rates reported by TJKM Traffic Consultants were used in the URBEMIS2007 modeling. TJKM predicted peak-hour trip rates based on traffic counts at existing Sports Basements stores in Sunnyvale and San Francisco. Trip reductions were then applied to the trip generation to account for alternative commute modes for employees (13 percent of employee trips) and customers (23.3 percent of customer trips). A peak-hour trip rate was computed by TJKM for both weekdays and weekends. According to TJKM, the daily trip generation is approximately eight-times greater than the

58 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS peak hour rate. An average weekly day rate was computed from the TJKM data and applied to the proposed 71,862-square-foot store.

As discussed in Chapter III, Project Description, the proposed project would include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. TDM strategies would result in more efficient use of transportation resources, reducing vehicle trips and parking demand generated by the project. The following TDM measures are proposed as part of the project:

. Customer Biking: The store would offer safe bike racks, free locks, and walk- in bike service to encourage more customers to bike to the store. Additionally, Sports Basement is a “Commuter Check for Bicycling” partner, where customers can redeem their Commuter Checks for purchasing bike equipment to enable more bicycle travel. This would be convenient in conjunction with the convenience to bicyclists of several streets around the projects site that are designated as Bike Boulevards.

. Staff Bike Commuting: In order to encourage staff bike commuting, Sports Basement would offer bike parking, free mechanic work for all staff, shower facilities at the location, and staff discounts to purchase bikes and bicycle accessories for the purpose of commuting.

. Staff Mass Transit: Sports Basement would offer all staff the opportunity to purchase Clipper transit cards for all Bay Area mass transit with pre-tax dollars. This program will save staff 20 to 40 percent off mass transit expenses and significantly encourages the use of mass transit.

The project will also be designed to meet current Uniform Building Code and City requirements for energy efficiency. Such features will include: . Programmable heating and cooling systems, . Maximized use of natural lighting, . High efficiency irrigation systems, . Low emitting insulation at walls and ceilings, . Insulation on all hot water pipes, . Energy Star appliances, and . Low flow toilets.

Also discussed in Chapter III, Project Description, the proposed project would include the installation of a cool roof and may include the installation of solar panels that would provide electricity. An on-site electricity generation strategy would result in a reduction in demand for electricity from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and would reduce the proposed project’s emissions.

Emissions associated with electricity consumption output by BGM were adjusted to account for PG&E’s lower emission rate. BGM uses a statewide rate of 805 pounds of CO per megawatt of electricity produced, while the rate for PG&E is 2

59 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS much lower at about 526 pounds of CO per megawatt.15 The PG&E rate was also 2 adjusted to account for increased use of renewable sources. The current renewable portfolio of 13 percent was assumed to increase to 20 percent by 2020.16

Emission of CO associated with natural gas combustion and electricity usage 2e was computed using default consumption rates in BGM. Since the proposed project would include new construction that would be required to meet State and City building code requirements, energy efficiency was assumed to be at least 20 percent greater than existing conditions.

Default emissions rates of water and wastewater conveyance were used. However, the BGM output emissions for CO were adjusted based on the PG&E 2e emissions rates for electricity described above.

The City of Berkeley Climate Action Plan has established a Zero Waste goal by eliminating materials sent to landfills by 2020.17 According to the City’s Climate Action Plan, a diversion rate of 59 percent was occurring in 2007. The City tracks progress on the Climate Action Plan and reports that since 2007, the waste stream has decreased by another 36 percent. For this assessment, a waste diversion rate of 72 percent was assumed in the modeling.

The per capita rate is the total annual GHG emissions expressed in metric tons divided by the service population (i.e., number of full time employees). The applicant reports that the proposed project would employ 65 to 80 people. For this analysis, employment of 65 people was assumed, with 40 employees assumed at the store during peak staffing periods.

Table IV.B-1 presents a summary of the results of the URBEMIS and BGM model analysis in terms of annual metric tons of equivalent CO emissions (MT of 2 CO /yr). 2e

15 CARB, CCAR, ICLEI, and the Climate Registry, 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories, Version 1.1. May. Table G.6 of Appendix G provides PG&E’s Utility-Specific Verified Electricity CO Emission Factors. The years 2005 through 2007 were averaged. 2 16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. CEQA Guidelines Update – Thresholds of Significance. June. Page 19 discusses the effect of the renewable portfolio Standard (rules) on PG&E’s portfolio. 17 City of Berkeley, 2009. Climate Action Plan. June.

60 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

TABLE IV.B-1 SUMMARY OF GHG EMISSIONS

Project Name: Berkely Iceland Project Years: 2020

Emissions of CO2e in Metric Tons Per Year

Emissions Emissions from BGM Converted for PG&E BAAQMD with Project and City rates adjusted for Threshold of Source Category BGM Emissions Conditions RPS Significance

Transportation: 1653 1653 1653 Area Source: 0 0 0 Electricity: 332 266 174 Natural Gas: 21 17 17 Water & Wastewater: 4 4 3 Solid Waste: 211 59 59 Total: 1905 1,100 New Employment 40

Emissions per capita 47.63 4.6

Model Adjustments: 1) Traffic forecasted trip generation rate for Sports Basement Store 2) Used PG&E emission rates and adjusted for 2020 RPS target of 20%. 3) Assumed 20% reduction in energy usage due to meeting new State and City building requirements for energy efficiency. 4) Assumed 72% waste diversion through current recycling programs.

Impact GHG-1: The Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project would generate annual operational-related GHG emissions that would result in GHG emissions of 1,905 metric tons of CO2e (47.63 per capita), which is in excess of the BAAQMD thresholds, resulting in a cumulative considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG impact. (S)

Almost 87 percent of the emissions would be associated with traffic, primarily customer traffic. Proposed project emissions would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO . In terms of per capita emissions, the 2e proposed project would emit 47.6 metric tons of CO per capita annually in 2e 2020, which would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 4.6 metric tons CO per capita annually. As a result, the project’s GHG emissions would have a 2e cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact and would be considered significant.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The proposed project includes a number of design features that would help minimize the project’s impact on GHGs. However, the implementation of these features would not reduce the project’s GHG emissions to a cumulatively less-than-significant level and no additional measures that would significantly reduce the project’s GHG emissions are available. No other features are available to fully mitigate this impact. (Cumulatively SU)

61 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

As designed, all feasible features and programs have been incorporated into the proposed project. The total increase in GHG emissions from the project would still be substantial due to the increase in traffic caused by trips to and from the location. The TDM proposed as part of the project will encourage employees and customers to commute on bicycles and on transit, which would result in a reduction of trips to and from the project. Compliance with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code and City of Berkeley policies would further reduce energy- related GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Finally, the installation of a cool roof and potential installation and operation of solar panels to provide electricity for the project would further reduce the proposed project emissions. Any measurable difference to GHG emissions as a result of implementing all feasible energy- and traffic-related features will provide a small (on the order of 5 percent) net reduction as compared to the total GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. As a result, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

62 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

This section describes the existing transportation, circulation, and parking conditions, including transit services, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the project site and its vicinity, and provides an analysis of the project’s potential impacts.

The analysis evaluates traffic-related impacts of the proposed project during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours at 11 intersections for the following five scenarios:

. Scenario 1: Existing Conditions – Current (Year 2011) traffic volumes and roadway conditions.

. Scenario 2: Existing plus Approved Projects (Baseline) Conditions – Identical to Existing Conditions, but with traffic added from approved/pending projects in the project site’s vicinity.

. Scenario 3: Existing plus Approved plus Project Conditions – Identical to Existing plus Approved Projects Conditions, but with traffic added from the proposed project.

. Scenario 4: Year 2035 Conditions (Future Cumulative Conditions) – This scenario is based on projections from the latest Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) travel demand model. Twenty-four-year incremental traffic growth was added to existing volumes to estimate 2035 traffic conditions.

. Scenario 5: Year 2035 plus Project Conditions (Future Cumulative Conditions) – This scenario is identical to Year 2035 Conditions, but with the addition of proposed project traffic.

1. Setting

This section describes the methods used to conduct the transportation analysis, and the existing transportation system and roadway operations in the vicinity of the project site (including roadway networks, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service). Local plans and policies relevant to transportation and circulation are also provided. a. Methods and Scope of Study This analysis was conducted according to the requirements for Level of Service (LOS) of the City of Berkeley. Intersections, rather than midblock roadway segments, are typically the critical capacity-controlling locations for vehicular travel on urban roadway networks and are the primary basis for determining traffic impacts. Eleven “study intersections” were selected after discussion with the City of Berkeley staff. The selected intersections are most likely to be affected by the proposed project. The study intersections include:

63 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

1. MLK Jr. Way/Dwight Way (Signal) 2. MLK Jr. Way/Derby Street (Signal) 3. MLK Jr. Way/Ward Street (Two-Way Stop) 4. MLK Jr. Way/Russell Street (Signal) 5. MLK Jr. Way/Ashby Avenue (Signal) 6. Shattuck Avenue/Dwight Way (Signal) 7. Shattuck Avenue/Adeline Street (Signal) 8. Shattuck Avenue/Ashby Avenue (Signal) 9. Adeline Avenue/Oregon Street (Signal) 10. Milvia Street/Derby street (All-Way Stop) 11. Milvia Street/Ward Street (Two-Way Stop)

The basis of analysis is peak hour Level of Service calculations for key intersections in the area. The peak hours are defined as the busiest hour for the study intersection between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on weekdays, and between 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM on weekends. These peak periods are identified as the PM and Saturday peak hours, respectively.

(1) Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards Existing operational conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using Synchro Software to implement the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Level of Service methodology.1 LOS is a qualitative description of intersection operations and is reported using an A through F letter rating system to describe travel delay and congestion. LOS A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, and LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive delays and long back-ups. The Level of Service methodology is detailed in Appendix E, Traffic and Circulation Analysis.

Peak hour intersection conditions for signalized intersections are reported as average control delay in seconds per vehicle with corresponding Levels of Service. For unsignalized intersections, results from the 2000 HCM Operations methodology include average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection and the critical turning movement, as well as corresponding Levels of Service.

Appendix E, Traffic and Circulation Analysis, details Level of Service thresholds for both signalized and unsignalized intersections, based on average control delay.

(2) Local Standards In Berkeley, acceptable intersection operation is LOS D or better for both signalized and unsignalized intersections.

1 Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington D.C.

64 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION b. Existing Transportation Conditions The proposed project involves an adaptive reuse of the Berkeley Iceland (ice- skating rink) facility located at 2727 Milvia Street. Figure IV.C-1 illustrates the area and its relationship to the surrounding road system including the study intersections. Figure IV.C-2 shows the proposed site plan for the project. The following section generally describes the transportation system in the area, including key facilities of the roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle networks.

(1) Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the proposed project site is provided by Interstate 80 and State Route 24, while local access is provided by Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. Way, Ashby Avenue (State Route 13), Dwight Way, Shattuck Avenue, Adeline Street, and Milvia Street.

(2) Existing Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian signals. The existing pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project are sidewalks on all of the nearby streets with crosswalks at intersections.

(3) Existing Bicycle Facilities Milvia Street in the project vicinity is designated as a Bicycle Boulevard. Most of the local streets in the project vicinity are designated as bike routes.

(4) Existing Transit Service Alameda-Contra Costa County (AC) Transit Bus Routes F, 18, and 800 (All Nighter) along Shattuck Avenue and Route 12 along MLK Jr. Way would serve the proposed development. Bus stops for all lines along Shattuck Avenue are located on both sides of Shattuck Avenue south of Parker Street. Route F connects the proposed project site to and from the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco, providing both weekday and weekend bus service at approximately 30-minute headways. Route 18 connects the proposed project site to the Berkeley BART station and the MacArthur BART station. Route 18 provides both weekday and weekend bus service along the Shattuck Avenue corridor at 15- to 30-minute headways. Route 800 connects the proposed project site to BART stations in downtown San Francisco and the following East Bay BART stations: West Oakland, Ashby, Berkeley, El Cerrito Del Norte, and Richmond. Route 12 connects the proposed project to Berkeley Bart, Ashby Bart and 19th Street/Uptown Transit Center. Route 12 provides weekday service with 20-minute headway during peak periods and 30-minute headways during other periods. On the weekend, the bus service is at approximately 30-minute headways.

(5) Existing Parking Characteristics There is currently on-street parking in the vicinity of the proposed project along Milvia Street, Derby Street and Ward Street. The on-street inventory and occupancy is described below in the Parking Demand Analysis.

65 KITTREDG E ST.

Y. BANC ROFT WY.

D URANT AVE. MILVIA ST.

Y ST. UTHER KING JR. W SHATTUCK AVE. CHANNING WY.

GRANT ST. cKINLE

M MARTIN L

ON HASTE ST. 1 RT HE . T T A 6 S DWIGHT WY.

BLAKE ST.

PARKER ST.

2 CARLETON ST. 10 Project 3 D Site ERBY ST.

11 7 WARD ST. . T.

S ST

N STUAR O T ST. T NA ORTH ST.

UL W DA 9 F 4 LLS E OREG ON S T.

RUSSEL ST.

5 ELINE ST. D TELEGRAPH AVE. A 8 ASHBY AVE.

NORTH LEGEND Not to Scale Study Intersection

99-054 - 9/12/11 - JB

Figure IV.C-1 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Vicinity Map Source: Nabi Construction & Engineering, 2011 Figure IV.C-2 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Site Plan BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

(6) Existing Conditions, Intersection Configurations, Control and Traffic Volumes All traffic data was collected in April 2011 on weekday evenings (4:00 PM - 6:00 PM) and Saturday afternoons (1:30 PM - 3:30 PM) counting turning movements at the eleven study intersections. Figure IV.C-3 shows the lane geometry and control type for the 11 study intersections. Figure IV.C-4 illustrates the existing peak hour turning movement volumes at the eleven study intersections.

(7) Existing Conditions Intersection Analysis Table IV.C-1 summarizes the results of the weekday and Saturday peak hour intersection analysis under Existing Conditions. Detailed Level of Service calculations are located in Appendix E, Traffic and Circulation Analysis.

Under Existing Conditions, all signalized study intersections operate at acceptable service levels (LOS D or better). During the weekday PM peak hour, the minor approach (Ward Street approach) of the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street operates unacceptably at LOS E with 40.9 seconds of delay. At unsignalized intersections with low-volume side streets, it is not unusual for the side street to operate at below-standard Level of Service (LOS E or F). A typical mitigation measure used for improving below-standard side street operations is to install a traffic signal. However, under Existing Conditions, the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street does not meet peak hour signal warrant criteria and therefore does not require a traffic signal. c. Baseline Scenarios The Existing plus Approved Project Conditions and the Future No Project Conditions baseline scenarios are described below.

(1) Existing plus Approved Project Conditions This scenario is similar to Existing Conditions, but includes added traffic from the approved developments within the project site’s vicinity.

Approved Projects Approved projects include developments that are either under construction, built but not fully occupied, or not built but have final development approval from the City. There are four approved projects in the proposed project’s vicinity that are expected to add traffic to the study intersections: . 3132 MLK Jr. Way Mixed-Use Project . 2701 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project . 2489 MLK Jr. Way Mixed-Use Project . 2598/2600 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Approved Projects Trip Generation and Trip Assignment Trip generation and trip assignment assumptions for the approved projects were based on the traffic study reports prepared for each project. Project trips from

68 Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Dwight Wy. Derby St. Ward St. Russell St. Ashby Ave.

Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Shattuck Ave./Dwight Wy. Shattuck Ave./Adeline St.

KITTREDGE ST.

Y. BANCROF W T WY.

JR. E. V G

LVIA ST. I DU K RA M UCK A NT AVE. R T

ST. THE HAT

S EY ST. LU CH N ANNING WY INL GRANT TI . cK

M Intersection #8 Intersection #9 MAR N Shattuck Ave./Ashby Ave. Adeline Ave./Oregon St. HAS O TE ST. 1 ERT

T T. A 6 S DWIG HT WY.

BLAKE ST.

PARKER ST . 2 C ARLET 10 ON ST. Project 3 D Site ERBY ST.

Intersection #10 Intersection #11 11 7 Milvia St./Derby St. Milvia St./Ward St. WAR D . ST. . T T.

S S

H N

STUART ST. O RT T

UL W DANA ST 9 F 4 OREGON ST. ELLS

RUS S EL ST. ST. RAPH AVE. G INE 5 EL TELE AD 8 ASHBY AV E.

LEGEND NORTH Study Intersection Not to Scale Not allowed 7-9 a.m., 4-6 p.m. weekdays 099-054 - 9/12/11 - JB

Figure IV.C-3 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Existing Conditions Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Dwight Wy. Derby St. Ward St. Russell St. Ashby Ave.

239 (139) 21 (5) 15 (9) 30 (21) 837 (537) 904 (618) 949 (635) 59 (16) 77 (71) 104 (104) 15 (13) 5 (8) 895 (632) 744 (469) 19 (9) 9 (3) 15 (15) 127 (123) 115 (117) 37 (15) 4 (2) 8 (6) 634 (659) 19 (7) 4 (3) 13 (14) 0 (39)

69 (43) 26 (7) 85 (54) 0 (62) 377 (284) 5 (6) 11 (16) 731 (749) 21 (9) 4 (2) 78 (70) 35 (23) 12 (21) 45 (20) 149 (142)

6 (1) 30 (9) 17 (8) 21 (11) 8 (20) 18 (21) 70 (37)

72 (100) 146 (117) 147 (126) 868 (524) 987 (621) 844 (423) 966 (615) 940 (590)

Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Shattuck Ave./Dwight Wy. Shattuck Ave./Adeline St.

KITTREDGE ST.

668 (458) 752 (601)

1,201 (976) 127 (83) 30 (19)

Y. BANCROFT WY. 90 (54) W 372 (282) JR. E. V 163 (141) G

LVIA ST. I DU K RA M UCK A NT AVE. 10 (21) R T

12 (8) 576 (462) ST. 749 (495) THE HAT 105 (90) S EY ST. LU CHANNING WY 1,223 (979) N INL GRANT TI . cK

M Intersection #8 Intersection #9 MAR N Shattuck Ave./Ashby Ave. Adeline Ave./Oregon St. HAS O TE ST. 1 ERT

T T. A 6 S DWIG HT WY.

48 (53) 531 (390) 16 (6) B 179 (169) 720 (500) LA 151 (179) 1 (8) KE ST 560 (449) 23 (52) . 29 (25) 55 (47) 87 (122) 26 (31) PARKER ST 49 (47) 31 (30) . 657 (583) 68 (87) 2 CARL ETON 10 ST.

61 (85) Project 53 (60) 29 (39) 3 834 (619) Site DER 479 (403) BY ST. Intersection #10 Intersection #11 11 7 Milvia St./Derby St. Milvia St./Ward St. WAR D . ST. . T T.

S S

H N

STUART S O RT T T. O

W DANA ST 9 FUL 4 OREGON ST. ELLS 15 (5) 5 (0) 29 (9) 6 (2) 25 (10) 3 (2) 5 (2) 9 (3) 45 (21) 7 (8) 4 (0) 0 (1) RUS SE L ST. 9 (5) ST. RAPH AVE. 9 (1) G 25 (19) 12 (10) INE 5 EL TELE 6 (5) 5 (3) AD 8 5 (5) 8 (3) 15 (3)

14 (7) ASHBY AV 25 (13) 36 (20) E.

LEGEND

Study Intersection NORTH XX PM Peak Hour Volumes (4 p.m. - 6 p.m.) Not to Scale (XX) Saturday Peak Hour Volumes (1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.)

099-054 - 9/12/11 - JB

Figure IV.C-4 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-1 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Existing Conditions

Weekday Saturday PM Peak Hour Peak Hour

ID Intersection Control Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS

1 MLK Jr. Way/Dwight Way Signal 15.4 0.67 B 13.2 0.39 B

2 MLK Jr. Way/Derby St. Signal 15.2 0.46 B 10.9 0.27 B Two-way 3 MLK Jr. Way/Ward St. 40.9 0.24 E 22.3 0.05 C Stop 4 MLK Jr. Way/Russell St. Signal 11.3 0.49 B 9.7 0.32 A

5 MLK Jr. Way/Ashby Ave. Signal 25.7 0.7 C 38.4 0.79 D

6 Shattuck Ave./Dwight Way Signal 22.6 0.76 C 18.2 0.57 B

7 Shattuck Ave./Adeline St. Signal 16.1 0.54 B 15.2 0.39 B

8 Shattuck Ave./Ashby Ave. Signal 29.9 0.78 C 22.5 0.66 C

9 Adeline Ave./Oregon St. Signal 11.7 0.38 B 11.8 0.35 B All-way 10 Milvia St./Derby St. 7.5 0.08 A 7.2 0.04 A Stop Two-way 11 Milvia St./Ward St. 9.8 0.05 A 9.3 0.03 A Stop Notes: Delay = Average control delay in seconds per vehicle, LOS = Level of Service Values are for the critical minor approach for two-way stop controlled intersections and overall intersection for signalized and all-way stop intersections Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

the above developments were added to the existing intersection turning movement counts to generate traffic turning movement volumes for Existing plus Approved Projects Condition as illustrated in Figure IV.C-5.

Level of Service Analysis (Existing plus Approved Projects Conditions) Intersection Level of Service analysis results for Existing plus Approved Projects Conditions are shown in Table IV.C-2. Detailed calculations and queuing analyses are included in Appendix E, Traffic and Circulation Analysis. With the addition of traffic from the approved developments, service levels for the weekday peak periods at all study intersections are expected to remain unchanged, with a few minor increases in average delay. During the weekday PM peak hour, the minor approach (Ward Street approach) of the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street is expected to continue operating below standards at LOS E. Under Existing plus Approved Project Conditions, the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street does not meet peak hour signal warrant criteria.

71 Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Dwight Wy. Derby St. Ward St. Russell St. Ashby Ave.

241 (141) 21 (5) 15 (9) 30 (21) 850 (550) 906 (620) 951 (637) 59 (16) 77 (71) 109 (109) 15 (13) 5 (8) 897 (634) 745 (470) 19 (9) 9 (3) 15 (15) 128 (124) 117 (119) 37 (15) 4 (2) 8 (6) 634 (659) 19 (7) 4 (3) 13 (14) 10 (39) 71 (45) 26 (7) 85 (54) 17 (62) 379 (286) 5 (6) 11 (16) 731 (749) 21 (9) 4 (2) 83 (75) 35 (23) 12 (21) 45 (20) 149 (142)

6 (1) 30 (9) 17 (8) 21 (11) 8 (20) 18 (21) 70 (37)

72 (100) 146 (121) 147 (126) 872 (537) 991 (625) 846 (425) 970 (619) 944 (594)

Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Shattuck Ave./Dwight Wy. Shattuck Ave./Adeline St.

KITTREDGE ST.

668 (466) 752 (607)

1,217 (992) 127 (83) 30 (19)

Y. BANCROFT WY. 90 (54) W

JR. 373 (283) E. V 173 (151) G IN

LVIA ST. I DU K RA M UCK A NT AVE. R T

10 (21) T. ST. S THE HAT 12 (8) 588 (474) 762 (508) S 107 (92) EY LU CH N ANNING WY INL GRANT TI . cK 1,231 (1,002) M MAR

Intersection #8 Intersection #9 N HAS O Shattuck Ave./Ashby Ave. Adeline Ave./Oregon St. TE ST. 1 ERT

T T. A 6 S DWIG HT WY.

16 (6) BLAKE 48 (53) 531 (393) 720 (508) ST 179 (172) 157 (185) 1 (8) . 560 (449) 23 (52) 29 (25) 55 (47) 26 (31) 87 (122) PARKER ST 49 (47) 31 (30) . 657 (583) 2 C 68 (87) ARLET 10 ON ST. Project 61 (85) 53 (60) 3 29 (39) D Site ERBY ST. 485 (409) 847 (632)

Intersection #10 Intersection #11 11 7 WAR Milvia St./Derby St. Milvia St./Ward St. D . ST. . T.

ST S

STUART ST. ON RT T

W DANA ST 9 FUL 4 OREGON ST. ELLS

15 (5) 5 (0) 29 (9) 6 (2) 25 (10) 3 (2) 5 (2) 9 (3) 45 (21) 7 (8) 4 (0) 0 (1) RUS S EL ST. ST. RAPH AVE. 9 (5) G 9 (1) INE 12 (10) 5 EL 25 (19) TELE 5 (3) AD 6 (5) 8

5 (5) 8 (3) 15 (3) ASHBY AV

14 (7) 25 (13) E 36 (20) .

LEGEND Study Intersection NORTH XX PM Peak Hour Volumes Not to Scale (XX) Saturday Peak Hour Volumes

099-054 - 9/12/11 - JB Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

Figure IV.C-5 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Existing Plus Approved Projects Turning Movement Volumes NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-2 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS CONDITIONS

Existing Plus Approved Existing Conditions Conditions

Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday PM Peak Hour Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour

ID Intersection Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS MLK Jr. Way/ 1 15.4 0.67 B 13.2 0.39 B 15.6 0.68 B 13.3 0.40 B Dwight Way MLK Jr. Way/ 2 15.2 0.46 B 10.9 0.27 B 15.2 0.46 B 10.9 0.27 B Derby Street MLK Jr. Way/ 3 40.9 0.24 E 22.3 0.05 C 41.0 0.24 E 22.4 0.05 C Ward Street MLK Jr. Way/ 4 11.3 0.49 B 9.7 0.32 A 11.3 0.49 B 9.7 0.32 A Russell Street MLK Jr. Way/ 5 25.7 0.70 C 38.4 0.79 D 25.8 0.7 C 38.6 0.79 D Ashby Ave. Shattuck Ave./ 6 22.6 0.76 C 18.2 0.57 B 22.8 0.77 C 18.4 0.59 B Dwight Way Shattuck Ave./ 7 16.1 0.54 B 15.2 0.39 B 16.2 0.54 B 15.2 0.39 B Adeline Street Shattuck Ave./ 8 29.9 0.78 C 22.5 0.66 C 29.9 0.78 C 22.5 0.67 C Ashby Ave. Adeline Ave./ 9 11.7 0.38 B 11.8 0.35 B 11.7 0.38 B 11.8 0.35 B Oregon Street Milvia Street/ 10 7.5 0.08 A 7.2 0.04 A 7.5 0.08 A 7.2 0.04 A Derby Street Milvia Street/ 11 9.8 0.05 A 9.3 0.03 A 9.8 0.05 A 9.3 0.03 A Ward Street Notes: Delay = Average control delay in seconds per vehicle, LOS = Level of Service Values are for the critical minor approach for two-way stop controlled intersections and overall intersection for signalized and all-way stop intersections. Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

(2) Future No Project Conditions Analysis This section discusses the Cumulative Year 2035 conditions and projects background conditions in the study area that would not involve the construction of the proposed project (but take into account the expected background increase in traffic).

Traffic Volumes Forecasts The 2035 traffic forecasts were developed by using the latest ACCMA traffic and land use projections.2 The difference between 2005 and 2035 model link

2 Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Transportation Model.

73 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION volumes were calculated to estimate a 24-year growth increment, which was applied to current 2011 traffic volumes to forecast 2035 volumes. This increment was added to existing turning movement volumes proportionately based on existing left, through, and right turn volumes at the study intersections to calculate 2035 turning movements. For minor side streets where the model does not provide link volumes, a growth factor of one percent per year was applied. Figure IV.C-6 illustrates the resulting 2035 turning movement volumes.

Cumulative (Year 2035) No Project Conditions Intersection Analysis For purposes of this EIR transportation analysis, the “Cumulative (Year 2035)” represents the background level-of-service at the study intersections for the existing condition plus some growth in background traffic which includes approved and planned projects for the year 2035 based on the Alameda CTC Model, not including the proposed project. Projected intersection turning movement volumes for 2035 baseline conditions are shown in Figure IV.C-6. The results of the associated Level of Service computations are presented in Table IV.C-3. Under 2035 Conditions, all intersections except the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street are expected to operate at LOS D or better. The minor approach (Ward Street approach) of the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street is expected to operate at LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour, which is below City Level of Service standards. The detailed Level of Service calculation sheet for each study intersection is presented in the Appendix E, Traffic and Circulation Analysis. d. Planned Improvements There are no significant planned roadway improvements in the project study area at this time. e. Local Plans and Policies The City of Berkeley General Plan is comprised of numerous elements, and those containing policies relevant to transportation resources primarily are contained in the Land Use and Transportation chapters of the General Plan. The goals and policies contained in the various General Plan Elements are often competing. In reviewing a project for conformity with the General Plan, the City is required to balance the competing goals and policies. The following policies that include Level of Service, trip reduction, access, bicycle usage, and pedestrian usage are relevant to this project:

. Policy T-18 Level of Service. When considering transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City shall consider how a plan or project affects all modes of transportation, including transit riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists, to determine the transportation impacts of a plan or project. Significant beneficial pedestrian, bicycle, or transit impacts, or significant beneficial impacts on air quality, noise, visual quality, or safety in residential areas, may offset or mitigate a significant adverse impact on vehicle Level of Service to a level of insignificance. The number of transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists potentially

74 Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Dwight Wy. Derby St. Ward St. Russell St. Ashby Ave.

22 (5) 38 (27) 61 (17) 258 (150) 959 (655) 16 (14) 16 (9) 924 (652) 79 (73) 905 (581) 24 (11) 15 (15) 112 (112) 1,000 (669) 767 (483) 5 (8) 11 (4) 131 (127) 122 (124) 47 (19) 10 (8) 5 (3) 17 (18) 673 (699) 24 (9) 5 (4) 0 (41) 104 (65) 108 (69) 33 (9) 0 (83) 566 (427) 27 (11) 6 (8) 14 (20) 980 (1,004) 117 (105) 44 (29) 5 (3) 57 (25) 200 (190) 15 (27)

7 (1)

9 (22) 20 (23) 23 (12) 19 (9) 33 (10) 85 (45) 82 (113) 177 (142) 167 (143) 956 (479)

1,070 (681) 1,049 (659) 1,053 (636) 1,098 (691) Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Shattuck Ave./Dwight Wy. Shattuck Ave./Adeline St.

KITTREDGE ST.

696 (477) 783 (626)

1,256 (1,021) 133 (87) 38 (24) Y. BANCROFT WY. 142 (85) W JR. E. 586 (444) V G 257 (222) IN LVIA ST. I D K URANT AVE. M UCK A R T

10 (21) ST. THE HAT S 576 (462) 17 (11) EY ST. LU 112 (96) CH 1,064 (703) N ANNING WY INL GRANT TI . cK

M 1,308 (1,047) MAR

N Intersection #8 Intersection #9 H O AS T TE ST. Shattuck Ave./Ashby Ave. Adeline Ave./Oregon St. 1 ER

T T. A 6 S DWIG HT WY.

48 (53) BLAKE 531 (390) 25 (9) 179 (169) 155 (183) 1,112 (772) ST 2 (12) . 574 (460) 29 (66) 30 (26) 70 (60) 110 (155) PARKER ST 26 (39) . 59 (57) 39 (38) 796 (707) 2 82 (105) C ARLET 10 ON ST. Project 61 (69) 77 (108) 3 33 (45) D Site ERBY ST. 553 (465) 1,059 (786) Intersection #10 Intersection #11 11 7 WAR D . Milvia St./Derby St. Milvia St./Ward St. ST. . T T.

S S

STUART ST. ON RT T

W DANA ST 9 FUL 4 OREGON ST. ELLS

6 (0) 19 (6) 37 (11) 8 (3) 32 (13) 6 (3) 11 (4) 4 (3) 9 (10) 57 (27) 0 (1) RUS 5 (0) S EL ST. ST. RAPH AVE. 11 (6) G 11 (1) INE 15 (13) 5 EL 32 (24) TELE 6 (4) AD 8 (6) 8

6 (6)

19 (4) ASHBY AV 10 (4) 18 (9) 32 (17) 46 (25) E.

LEGEND NORTH Study Intersection Not to Scale XX PM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) Saturday Peak Hour Volumes 099-054 - 9/12/11 - JB

Figure IV.C-6 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR 2035 Conditions Turning Movement Volumes BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-3 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – CUMULATIVE YEAR 2035 CONDITIONS

2035 Conditions

Weekday Saturday PM Peak Hour Peak Hour

ID Intersection Control Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS

1 MLK Jr. Way/Dwight Way Signal 22.7 0.95 C 18.2 0.7 B

2 MLK Jr. Way/Derby St. Signal 18.9 0.53 B 11.2 0.31 B Two-way 3 MLK Jr. Way/Ward St. 48.5 0.33 E 27.1 0.09 D Stop 4 MLK Jr. Way/Russell St. Signal 12.1 0.58 B 10.1 0.36 B

5 MLK Jr. Way/Ashby Ave. Signal 29.8 0.86 C 42.5 0.95 D

6 Shattuck Ave./Dwight Way Signal 36.5 0.95 D 22.4 0.72 C

7 Shattuck Ave./Adeline St. Signal 16.7 0.66 B 15.0 0.47 B

8 Shattuck Ave./Ashby Ave. Signal 32.8 0.88 C 24.7 0.79 C

9 Adeline Ave./Oregon St. Signal 14.3 0.52 B 12.9 0.47 B All-way 10 Milvia St./Derby St. 7.8 0.11 A 7.3 0.05 A Stop Two-way 11 Milvia St./Ward St. 10.1 0.07 B 9.5 0.04 A Stop Notes: Delay = Average control delay in seconds per vehicle, LOS = Level of Service Values are for the critical minor approach for two-way stop controlled intersections and overall intersection for signalized and all-way stop intersections. Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

affected will be considered when evaluating a degradation of Level of Service for motorists.

. Policy T-10 Trip Reduction. To reduce automobile traffic and congestion and increase transit use and alternative modes in Berkeley, support, and when appropriate require, programs to encourage Berkeley citizens and commuters to reduce automobile trips, such as: – Participation in a citywide Eco-Pass Program (also see Transportation Policy T-3). – Participation in the Commuter Check Program. – Carpooling and provision of carpool parking and other necessary facilities. – Telecommuting programs. – "Free bicycle" programs and electric bicycle programs. – "Car-sharing" programs. – Use of pedal-cab, bicycle delivery services, and other delivery services. – Programs to encourage neighborhood-level initiatives to reduce traffic by encouraging residents to combine trips, carpool, telecommute, reduce the number of cars owned, shop locally, and use alternative modes.

76 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

– Programs to reward Berkeley citizens and neighborhoods that can document reduced car use. – Limitations on the supply of long-term commuter parking and elimination of subsidies for commuter parking. – No-fare shopper shuttles connecting all shopping districts throughout the city.

. Policy T-20 Neighborhood Protection and Traffic Calming. Take actions to prevent traffic and parking generated by residential, commercial, industrial or institutional activities from being detrimental to residential areas (Also see Land Use Policies LU-9, LU- 10, and LU- 11.)

. Policy T-28 Emergency Access. Provide for emergency access to all parts of the city and safe evacuation routes (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-22.).

. Policy T-29 Infrastructure Improvements. Facilitate mobility and the flow of traffic on major and collector streets (shown on the Vehicular Circulation Network map at the end of the Element), reduce the air quality impacts of congestion, improve pedestrian and bicycle access, and speed public transportation throughout the city by making improvements to the existing physical infrastructure.

. Policy T-40 Parking Impacts. When considering parking impacts for residential projects with more than two units located in the Avenue Commercial, Downtown, or High Density Residential land use classifications, any significant parking impacts identified that result from the project should be mitigated by improving alternatives to automobile travel and thereby reducing the need for parking. Examples include improvements to public transportation, pedestrian access, car sharing programs, and bicycle facility improvements. Parking impacts for these projects should not be mitigated through the provision of additional parking on the site. The City finds that: – Parking supply and demand may easily be adjusted by changing local pricing policies and by changing how the supply is managed. – As the parking supply increases or parking costs decrease, automobile use becomes a more attractive transportation alternative and demand for parking increases. As parking supply decreases and its price increases, demand decreases. – Increasing the parking supply increases automobile use, which causes a measurably negative impact on the environment.

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

. Policy T-44 Bicycle Safety. Improve bicycle safety for riders, pedestrians, and drivers through continuing education of motorists and bicyclists as well as rigorous enforcement of laws for both bicyclists and automobile drivers.

. Policy T-45 Bicycle Promotions. Promote bicycle use by increasing public awareness of the benefits of bicycling and of the available bike facilities and programs.

. Policy T-52 Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian crossings throughout the city.

77 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This section evaluates the project’s potential adverse effects related to transportation, circulation and parking and it considers vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The section begins with a detailed explanation of the significance criteria used to determine whether an effect would be significant. Then impacts are assessed in the study area for each of the analysis scenarios. a. Significance Criteria The City of Berkeley’s significance criteria were used to determine if the proposed project would have a significant traffic impact.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant transportation/traffic impact if it would:

. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number or vehicle trips, the volume/capacity (V/C) ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections);

. Result in inadequate emergency access;

. Result in inadequate parking capacity; or

. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).

The following information is provided by the City of Berkeley to further define the significance criteria for transportation/traffic impacts in the City:

(1) Signalized and All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections According to the City of Berkeley, a significant traffic-related impact would occur at signalized and all way-stop controlled intersections if the addition of project traffic results in:

. Intersection operations degrade from LOS D to LOS E or worse and more than a 2-second increase in delay; or

. More than a 3-second increase in delay at intersections operating at LOS E without and with the proposed project; or

. Intersection operations degrade from LOS E to LOS F and more than a 3-second increase in delay; or

. At intersections operating at LOS F without the project, a change in the V/C ratio of more than 0.01.

For unsignalized intersections, additional considerations are involved, including the number of vehicles on the critical approach, vehicles contributed by the proposed project, and signal warrant analysis.

78 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

(2) Additional Significance Criteria The project would also be judged to have a significant impact if it would:

. Create unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists

. Cause a substantial delay in transit service, or increase demand for transit beyond existing or planned service capacity b. Proposed Project The transportation and circulation related elements of the proposed project are described below.

(1) Trip Generation Trip generation used for the proposed project is based on traffic counts conducted at two Sports Basement stores in the following Bay Area locations: . 1175 Kern Avenue in Sunnyvale; and . 1590 Bryant Street in San Francisco

The gross square footage of the San Francisco store is 54,440 square feet and the Sunnyvale facility is 50,000 square feet. Transaction summaries (sales reports) from Sports Basement were obtained and reviewed for the two stores. The summaries were used to inform the appropriate peak times to collect field count data intended to supplement the peak period data provided in Trip Generation, 8th Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).3 Based on the transaction summaries and ITE trip generation data, vehicle driveway counts were conducted between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM on a weekday (Tuesday) and between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM on a weekend (Saturday). The trip generation summary for the two sites is shown in Table IV.C-4.

As shown in Table IV.C-4, the weekday trip generation rate varies between 2.8 trips per 1,000 square feet and 3.9 trips per 1,000 square feet during the PM peak period and the inbound/outbound split is approximately 50 percent. The weekend trip generation rate varies between 5.6 trips per 1,000 square feet and 5.9 trips per 1,000 square feet. The findings show that the trip generation for the weekday PM peak is similar to the ITE trip generation published rates, while the weekend rates are lower than the ITE rates. Based on the above analysis and ITE comparison, the average of the trip generation rates observed at the two existing Sports Basement sites was used for the proposed project, which: . Weekday PM Peak: 3.35 vehicles per 1,000 square feet, and . Weekend Peak: 5.75 vehicles per 1,000 square feet.

3 Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2008, Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, December.

79 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-4 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY FOR OTHER SPORTS BASEMENT SITES

Vehicle Trip Generation Facility Trips Rates Size Survey Peak Facility Location (sq. ft.) Date Period Enter. Exit Enter. Exit Total 26-Mar-11 2:00 PM – 158 149 2.9 2.7 5.6 Sports Basement (Saturday) 3:00 PM 54,440 – San Francisco 29-Mar-11 5:00 PM – 96 52 1.8 1.0 2.8 (Tuesday) 6:00 PM 26-Mar- 11 2:00 PM – 150 144 3.0 2.9 5.9 Sports Basement (Saturday) 3:00 PM 50,000 – Sunnyvale 29-Mar-11 5:00 PM – 100 95 2.0 1.9 3.9 (Tuesday) 6:00 PM Weekend 2.95 2.80 5.75 Average Weekday 1.90 1.45 3.35 Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

Based on the above trip rates, Table IV.C-5 summarizes the expected trips from the proposed project. The percentage reduction in vehicle trips to account for walk, bicycle and transit trips was based on Census Transportation Planning Program (CTPP) data (Transit/Walk/Bike usage is 13 percent) for employees working in the area, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) traffic model (23.3 percent Transit/Walk/Bike use for Home-Based Work and 40 percent for Home-Based Shopping). TJKM staff also conducted a 15-minute field survey at the San Francisco site to estimate the non-auto mode use at the site. Based on the survey, it is estimated that 81 percent drove to the store during the weekend peak and 71 percent drove to the store during the weekday peak, with the remainder using alternate modes of transportation.

Based on all of the above data, a conservative percentage reduction of 13 percent for employees and 23.3 percent for shoppers was applied to the proposed project trips, which matches the lower trip reduction rate from the CMA traffic model and falls in between the 19 and 29 percent non-auto travel methods from the field survey described above. The number of employees expected to leave during the peak period was based on employee shift data provided by Sports Basement for the Sunnyvale facility (14 employees during PM peak and 11 employees during weekend peak). Table IV.C-5 summarizes the net vehicle trips expected from the proposed project.

The proposed project is expected to generate 183 trips during the weekday PM peak period and 316 trips during the weekend peak period.

80 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-5 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FOR SPORTS BASEMENT, BERKELEY

Weekday PM Weekend Peak Hour Peak Hour Size Use (sq. ft.) Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total

Sports Basement 71,862 3.35 121 120 241 5.75 206 207 413

Total Trips (Before Reduction) 121 120 241 206 207 413 Transit/Walk/Bike Trips 2 2 1 1 (Employee) – 13% Transit/Walk/Bike Trips 28 28 56 48 48 96 (Shopper) – 23.3% Project Total 93 90 183 158 158 316 Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

(2) Transportation Demand Management Measures by Sports Basement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are designed to result in more efficient use of transportation resources, reducing vehicle trips and parking demand generated by the project. The following TDM measures would be implemented as part of the proposed project.

. Customer Biking: The store would offer safe bike racks, free locks, and walk- in bike service to encourage customers to ride to the store. Additionally, Sports Basement is a “Commuter Check for Bicycling” partner, where customers can redeem their Commuter Checks for purchasing bike equipment to enable more bicycle travel. Additionally, several streets around the projects site that are designated as Bike Boulevards.

. Staff Bike Commuting: In order to encourage staff bike commuting, Sports Basement would offer – Bike parking, – Free mechanic work for all staff, – Shower facilities at the location, and – Staff discounts to purchase a bike and accessories.

Based on information from other Sports Basement stores located in urban areas (Presidio and Bryant Streets), Sports Basement expects approximately 20 percent of the staff to bike to work on a daily basis.

. Staff Mass Transit: Sports Basement would offer all staff the opportunity to purchase Clipper transit cards for all Bay Area mass transit with pre-tax dollars. This program saves staff 20- to 40-percent off mass transit expenses and significantly encourages the use of mass transit.

81 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

(3) Trip Distribution Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed project were developed based on existing travel patterns and knowledge of the study area. The distribution assumptions are listed below: . 11 percent to/from west via Dwight Way . 15 percent to/from north via Shattuck Avenue . 27 percent to/from north via MLK Jr. Way . 16 percent to/from south via Shattuck Avenue/Adeline Street . 19 percent to/from south via MLK Jr. Way . 10 percent to/from east via Ashby Avenue . 2 percent to/from the east via Derby Street

The trip distribution assumptions for the study intersections are illustrated in Figure IV.C-7. The project trips were assigned to the study area roadway network based on the above trip distribution assumptions. Resulting turning movement volumes for Existing plus Approved plus Project Conditions are illustrated in Figure IV.C-8. c. Intersection, Roadway, and Access Impacts The following describes the intersection and roadway impacts that are expected to result from implementation of the Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project. For the project and cumulative 2035 scenarios, Tables IV.C-6 and IV.C-8 list the intersections that would operate at an unacceptable level.

(1) Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project Intersection Operations Intersection Level of Service analysis results for Existing plus Approved Projects plus Project Conditions are shown in Table IV.C-6 for the weekday and Saturday peak hour. Detailed calculations and queuing analyses are included in Appendix E, Traffic and Circulation Analysis.

The City’s Level of Service standard is LOS D for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Intersections that exceed this service level threshold are considered impacted and should be considered for mitigation. For unsignalized intersections, additional considerations are involved, including the number of vehicles on the critical approach, vehicles contributed by the proposed project, and signal warrant analysis. The City standards allows exceptions to the LOS D standard when the project is not expected to add more than three seconds of delay at an intersection that is operating at LOS E, or increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01 at an intersection that is operating at LOS F, without the proposed project.

With the addition of the proposed project and approved developments, intersection Levels of Service during weekday peak periods at all study intersections, except the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street, are expected to remain unchanged, with a few minor increases in average delay.

82 Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Dwight Wy. Derby St. Ward St. Russell St. Ashby Ave.

8 (13) 9 (15) 28 (47) 8 (13) 25 (43) 17 (30) 17 (30) 31 (54) 10 (18) 9 (15) 5 (9) 10 (17)

5 (9) 9 (15) 9 (15) 7 (12) 10 (17) 10 (18) 18 (30) 24 (43) 18 (30)

Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Shattuck Ave./Dwight Wy. Shattuck Ave./Adeline St.

KITTREDGE ST. 3 (5) 14 (25)

14 (24)

. Y BANCROFT WY. 11 (19) W

E. V 3 (5) LVIA ST. I DU 3 (5) RANT AVE. 12 (20) M UCK A T . T ST. S HAT S EY 27% CHANNING WY INL GRANT . cK IN LUTHER KING JR. T Intersection #8 Intersection #9 M 15%

MAR N Shattuck Ave./Ashby Ave. Adeline Ave./Oregon St. 11% O HAS TE ST. 1 ERT

T T. A 6 S DWIG HT WY.

7 (13) B 7 (13) 3 (5) LAKE ST.

2 (3) 9 (16) 4 (6) 5 (9) PARKER ST . 2 C 4 (6) ARL ETON 3 (5) 10 ST. 7 (13) Project 3 D Site ERBY ST. Intersection #10 Intersection #11 2% Milvia St./Derby St. Milvia St./Ward St. 11 7 WAR D S . T. T. T T.

H NS

STUART S O RT T T. O

W DANA S 9 FUL 4 OREGON ST. ELLS 9 (15) 15 (27) 13 (23) 10 (17) RUS 37 (62) 40 (69) 13 (22) S EL ST. ST. RAPH AVE. G INE 5 EL TELE AD 8

13 (22) ASHBY AV E. 19% 8% 10%

LEGEND NORTH Study Intersection Not to Scale XX PM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) Saturday Peak Hour Volumes 099-054 - 9/12/11 - JB

Figure IV.C-7 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Proposed Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Dwight Wy. Derby St. Ward St. Russell St. Ashby Ave.

241 (141) 21 (5) 15 (9) 30 (21) 875 (593) 914 (633) 960 (652) 59 (16) 77 (71) 109 (109) 43 (60) 13 (21) 914 (664) 762 (500) 50 (63) 19 (21) 15 (15) 128 (124) 117 (119) 37 (15) 4 (2) 8 (6) 634 (659) 28 (22) 9 (12) 13 (14) 0 (39)

71 (45) 26 (7) 85 (54) 0 (62) 379 (286) 5 (6) 11 (16) 731 (749) 21 (9) 4 (2) 93 (92) 35 (23) 12 (21) 45 (20) 149 (142)

30 (9)

21 (11) 8 (20) 18 (21) 77 (49) 22 (17) 15 (16) 72 (100) 156 (138) 147 (126) 896 (580) 864 (455) 980 (637) 962 (624)

1,000 (640) Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Shattuck Ave./Dwight Wy. Shattuck Ave./Adeline St.

KITTREDGE ST. 671 (471) 766 (632)

1,231 (1,016) 127 (83) 30 (19)

101 (73) Y. BANCROFT WY. 373 (283) W

JR. 173 (151) E. V G

LVIA ST. I DU K RA 10 (21) M UCK A NT AVE. R T 765 (513)12 (8) 600 (494) ST. 107 (92) THE HAT S EY ST. LU CH N ANNING WY INL 1,234 (1,007) GRANT TI . cK

M Intersection #8 Intersection #9 MAR

N Shattuck Ave./Ashby Ave. Adeline Ave./Oregon St. H O AS T TE ST. 1 ER

T T. A 6 S DWIG HT WY.

48 (53) 538 (406) 16 (6) 186 (185) 723 (513) 166 (201) 1 (8) BLAKE 560 (449) 23 (52) ST. 29 (25) 60 (56) 26 (31) 87 (122) 49 (47) 35 (36) PARKER ST 659 (586) . 68 (87) 2 C ARLET 10 ON ST. 65 (91) 53 (60) Project 29 (39) 850 (637) 3 492 (422) D Site ERBY ST. Intersection #10 Intersection #11 Milvia St./Derby St. Milvia St./Ward St. 11 7 WAR D . ST. . T.

ST S

STUART ST. ON RT T

W DANA ST 9 FUL 4 ELLS 15 (5) 5 (0) 6 (2) 25 (10) 16 (25) 29 (9) OREGON ST. 5 (2) 18 (18) 85 (90) 22 (35) 4 (0) 10 (18) RUS S 9 (5) EL ST. 9 (1) ST. RAPH AVE. 25 (32) G 62 (81) INE EL 5 (3) TELE 6 (5) AD

5 (5) 8 8 (3) 15 (3)

25 (13) 36 (20) ASHBY AV 27 (29) E. 5

LEGEND NORTH Study Intersection Not to Scale XX PM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) Saturday Peak Hour Volumes 099-054 - 9/12/11 - JB

Figure IV.C-8 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR Existing Plus Approved Plus Project Conditions Turning Movement Volumes NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

Existing Plus Approved Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Proposed Projects Conditions Project Conditions

Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday PM Peak Hour Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour

ID Intersection Control Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS MLK Jr. Way/ 1 Signal 15.6 0.68 B 13.3 0.40 B 16.4 0.74 B 13.6 0.6 B Dwight Way MLK Jr. Way/ 2 Signal 15.2 0.46 B 10.9 0.27 B 19.1 0.54 B 11.4 0.35 B Derby Street MLK Jr. Way/ Two-way 3 41.0 0.24 E 22.4 0.05 C 44.0 0.42 E 22.4 0.18 C Ward Street Stop MLK Jr. Way/ 4 Signal 11.3 0.49 B 9.7 0.32 A 11.4 0.5 B 9.8 0.33 A Russell Street MLK Jr. Way/ 5 Signal 25.8 0.7 C 38.6 0.79 D 25.9 0.71 C 38.3 0.81 D Ashby Ave. Shattuck Ave./ 6 Signal 22.8 0.77 C 18.4 0.59 B 22.9 0.78 C 18.5 0.6 B Dwight Way Shattuck Ave./ 7 Signal 16.2 0.54 B 15.2 0.39 B 16.3 0.55 B 15.3 0.4 B Adeline Street Shattuck Ave./ 8 Signal 29.9 0.78 C 22.5 0.67 C 30.1 0.79 C 22.6 0.69 C Ashby Ave. Adeline Ave./ 9 Signal 11.7 0.38 B 11.8 0.35 B 11.8 0.38 B 11.8 0.35 B Oregon Street Milvia Street/ All-way 10 7.5 0.08 A 7.2 0.04 A 8.0 0.17 A 8.0 0.19 A Derby Street Stop Milvia Street/ Two-way 11 9.8 0.05 A 9.3 0.03 A 10.2 0.11 B 9.9 0.09 A Ward Street Stop Notes: Delay = Average control delay in seconds per vehicle, LOS = Level of Service Values are for the critical minor approach for two-way stop controlled intersections and overall intersection for signalized and all-way stop intersections. Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

Impact TRAF-1: Implementation of the proposed Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Project would add more than three seconds of delay at MLK Jr. Way/Ward Street intersection which currently operates at LOS E under the Existing and Existing Plus Approved scenarios. (S)

During the weekday PM peak hour, the Level of Service at the minor approach (Ward Street approach) of the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street is expected to continue operating at unacceptable levels with a substantial increase in delay due to the added project traffic. This intersection is significantly

85 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION impacted by the project in the weekday PM peak hour based on the significance criteria (project is expected to add more than three seconds of delay at an intersection that is operating at LOS E) established by the City of Berkeley. A typical mitigation measure used for improving below-standard side street operations is to install a traffic signal. However, under Existing plus Approved plus Project Conditions, the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street does not meet peak hour signal warrant criteria. Also, at unsignalized intersections with low-volume side streets, it is not unusual for the side street to operate at below-

standard Level of Service (e.g. LOS E or F).

Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Restrict the eastbound and westbound left turn movements and through movements resulting in a right-turn-only movement from Ward Street during the peak hours. The intersection is expected to operate at LOS B with a delay of 12.0 seconds/vehicle during the PM peak hour with the left-turn restrictions. This measure may not be feasible due to funding limitations and considerations related to neighborhood traffic circulation. Accordingly, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. (SU)

Under Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions, approximately five vehicles make the eastbound left turn and approximately nine vehicles make the westbound left turn during the PM peak hour. If this mitigation measure is implemented, these vehicles would be diverted to Stuart Street to the south or Derby Street to the north of Ward Street.

The Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE)4 index methodology is typically used to gauge the impact of increased traffic volume on residential streets. TIRE index methodology assigns a numerical value to “residents’ perception of traffic effects on activities such as walking, crossing the street, and maneuvering out of a driveway.” TIRE index is based on the daily volumes on the residential street. TIRE index considers a 25-percent increase in volume on a residential street to be an impact. Table IV.C-7 summarizes the expected increase in traffic volume on Ward Street and Derby Street during a typical weekday. Existing traffic volumes on Ward Street and Derby Street are based on counts conducted in April 2011

With the addition of the proposed project, the increase in traffic volume on the residential street is expected to be greater than 25 percent. The results indicated by the TIRE index show that the addition of project traffic would increase traffic volume significantly on Derby Street and Ward Street. However, it should be noted that Derby Street between MLK Jr. Way and Shattuck Avenue and Ward Street between Milvia Street and Shattuck Avenue are not residential streets and TIRE index is typically used to gauge the impact on residential streets only. The

4 TIRE Index Analysis for residential streets in project vicinity.

86 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-7 TIRE INDEX ANALYSIS ON WARD STREET AND DERBY STREET

Existing + Percentage Existing Project Change Conditions Conditions in Traffic Roadway Segment (Daily Volume) (Daily Volume) (Daily) Derby Street between MLK Jr. Way 1,404 2,020 44% and Milvia Street Derby Street between Milvia Street 1,128 1,920 70% and Shattuck Avenue Ward Street between MLK Jr. Way 516 740 43% and Milvia Street Ward Street between Milvia Street 528 936 77% and Shattuck Avenue Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011. residential portions of Ward Street and Derby Street would not carry significant project traffic. As a result, the project would not result in any significant impacts on local residential streets.

(2) Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Intersection Operations This scenario is identical to 2035 Conditions which includes planned and approved projects, and the addition of traffic from the proposed project. Figure IV.C-9 shows the intersection turning movement volumes resulting from project trip assignment under 2035 plus Project Conditions.

(3) Level of Service Analysis (2035) Plus Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service analysis results for 2035 plus Project Conditions are shown in Table IV.C-8 for the weekday peak periods. Detailed calculations and queuing analyses are included in Appendix E, Traffic and Circulation Analysis.

Under 2035 plus Project Conditions, the same study intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street, as under 2035 Conditions without the project, is expected to operate below City Level of Service standards of LOS D or worse.

Impact TRAF-2: Implementation of the proposed Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Project would add more than three seconds of delay at MLK Jr. Way/Ward Street intersection which operates at LOS E under 2035 conditions (without project). (S)

The minor approach (Ward Street approach) of the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street is significantly impacted by the project in the weekday PM peak hour and operates at LOS F. A typical mitigation measure used for improving below-standard side street operations would be to install a traffic signal. However, under 2035 plus Project Conditions, the intersection of MLK Jr. Way

87 Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Martin Luther King Jr. Wy/ Dwight Wy. Derby St. Ward St. Russell St. Ashby Ave.

38 (27) 22 (5) 61 (17) 258 (150) 967 (668) 941 (682) 930 (624) 44 (61) 15 (15) 79 (73) 112 (112) 55 (65) 16 (9) 784 (513) 1,009 (684) 131 (127) 122 (124) 13 (21) 21 (22) 10 (8) 47 (19) 17 (18) 673 (699) 33 (24) 5 (3) 10 (13) 0 (41) 104 (65) 108 (69) 33 (9) 0 (83) 566 (427) 27 (11) 6 (8) 14 (20) 980 (1,004) 127 (122) 44 (29) 5 (3) 57 (25) 200 (190) 15 (27)

9 (22) 23 (12) 20 (23)

92 (57) 16 (16) 33 (10) 24 (18) 82 (113) 187 (159) 167 (143) 974 (509)

1,067 (689) 1,077 (679) 1,080 (699) 1,107(706) Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Shattuck Ave./Dwight Wy. Shattuck Ave./Adeline St.

KITTREDGE ST.

699 (482) 797 (651) 1,270 (1,045) 133 (87)

38 (24) B 153 (104) ANCROFT WY. 586 (444) E. 257 (222) V

LVIA ST. D I URA M UCK A NT AVE. T

10 (21) ST. HAT S 112 (96) 588 (482) 17 (11) EY ST. CHANNING WY 1,067 (708) IN LUTHER KING JR. WY. INL T GRANT . cK 1,311 (1,052) M MAR

Intersection #8 Intersection #9 N H O AS T Shattuck Ave./Ashby Ave. Adeline Ave./Oregon St. TE ST. 1 ER

T T. A 6 S DWIG HT WY.

48 (53) 538 (403) 25 (9) B 186 (182) 164 (199) 1,115 (777) LAKE 2 (12) ST 574 (460) 29 (66) . 30 (26) 75 (69) 110 (155) 26 (39) PARKER ST 59 (57) 43 (44) . 798 (710) 82 (105) 2 C ARLET 10 ON ST. Project 61 (69) 81 (114) 33 (45) 3 D 560 (478) Site ERBY ST. 1,062 (791) Intersection #10 Intersection #11 11 7 Milvia St./Derby St. Milvia St./Ward St. WAR D . ST. . T T.

S S

STUART ST. ON RT T

W DANA ST 9 FUL 4 ELLS

6 (0) 8 (3) OREGON ST. 37 (11) 19 (6) 6 (3) 32 (13) 20 (19) 17 (26) 24 (37) 97 (96) 10 (18) 5 (0) RUS S EL ST. 11 (6) ST. RAPH AVE. 11 (1) G 28 (35) INE 69 (86) 5 EL 6 (4) TELE 8 (6) AD 8 6 (6)

19 (4) A 10 (4) SHBY AV 46 (25) 32 (17) 31 (31) E.

LEGEND NORTH Not to Scale Study Intersection XX PM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) Saturday Peak Hour Volumes

099-054 - 9/12/11 - JB Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

Figure IV.C-9 Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Draft EIR 2035 Plus Project Conditions Turning Movement Volumes NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-8 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – CUMULATIVE 2035 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

2035 Plus Proposed 2035 Conditions Project Conditions

Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday PM Peak Hour Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour

ID Intersection Control Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS

1 MLK Jr. Way/Dwight Way Signal 22.7 0.95 C 18.2 0.70 B 25.0 1.01 C 19.9 0.76 B

2 MLK Jr. Way/Derby Street Signal 18.9 0.53 B 11.2 0.31 B 30.7 0.61 C 11.9 0.38 B

3 MLK Jr. Way/Ward Street Two-way Stop 48.5 0.33 E 27.1 0.09 D 53.0 0.49 F 26.2 0.24 D

4 MLK Jr. Way/Russell Street Signal 12.1 0.58 B 10.1 0.36 B 12.2 0.58 B 10.2 0.37 B

5 MLK Jr. Way/Ashby Ave. Signal 29.8 0.86 C 42.5 0.95 D 30.5 0.88 C 44.3 0.97 D

6 Shattuck Ave./Dwight Way Signal 36.5 0.95 D 22.4 0.72 C 37.7 0.95 D 22.5 0.73 C

7 Shattuck Ave./Adeline Street Signal 16.7 0.66 B 15.0 0.47 B 16.8 0.67 B 15.1 0.48 B

8 Shattuck Ave./ Ashby Ave. Signal 32.8 0.88 C 24.7 0.79 C 33.5 0.89 C 24.9 0.76 C

9 Adeline Ave./Oregon Street Signal 14.3 0.52 B 12.9 0.47 B 14.4 0.53 B 13.0 0.48 B

10 Milvia Street/Derby Street All-way Stop 7.8 0.11 A 7.3 0.05 A 8.3 0.2 A 8.2 0.22 A

11 Milvia Street/Ward Street Two-way Stop 10.1 0.07 B 9.5 0.04 A 10.6 0.12 B 10.2 0.11 B Notes: Delay = Average control delay in seconds per vehicle, LOS = Level of Service Values are for the critical minor approach for two-way stop controlled intersections and overall intersection for signalized and all-way stop intersections. Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

89 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION and Ward Street does not meet peak hour signal warrant criteria. Also, at unsignalized intersections with low-volume side streets, it is not unusual for the side street to operate at below-standard Level of Service (e.g. LOS E or F).

Mitigation Measure TRAF-2: Restrict the eastbound and westbound left turn movements and through movements resulting in a right-turn-only movement from Ward Street during the peak hours. The intersection is expected to operate at LOS B with a delay of 12.2 seconds/vehicle during the PM peak hour with the left-turn restrictions. This measure may not be feasible due to funding limitations and considerations related to neighborhood traffic circulation. Accordingly, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. (SU)

Under Cumulative 2035 plus Project conditions, approximately five vehicles would make the eastbound left turn, and approximately nine vehicles would make the westbound left turn during the PM peak hour. If this mitigation measure were to be implemented, these vehicles would be diverted to Stuart Street to the south or Derby Street to the north of Ward Street. d. Site Access and Emergency Access The project’s impact related to site vehicular access, off-street loading, and emergency access are discussed below.

(1) Site Access The proposed project’s access would use existing and new driveways that would provide entry and exit to/from the project site on Derby Street and Ward Street, as shown previously on Figure IV.C-2. As shown on the site plan, vehicles would access off-street parking from Derby Street on the north side of the project site and Ward Street from the south side of the project site. From Derby Street, automobiles would enter the off-street parking spaces from the driveway located on the northwest corner of the project site near Milvia Street and would exit from the driveway on the northeast corner of the project site. From Ward Street, automobiles would enter the off-street parking spaces from the driveway located on the southeast corner of the project site closest to Adeline Street, and exit from the driveway on the southwest corner. The parking areas would not be interconnected. All driveways are expected to be adequate for cars and small trucks accessing the site. The Ward Street entrance driveway would also provide access for loading dock. TJKM recommends that the project comply with all traffic engineering standard measures, which could include the installation of “STOP’ signs.

(2) Off-Street Loading Based on Section 23E.32.020 of the City’s Zoning Code, any new construction or addition of commercial gross floor area of greater than 10,000 square feet shall require off-street loading spaces at a rate of one for the first 10,000 square feet

90 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION and one for each additional 40,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed project would retain the two existing off-street loading spaces at the loading dock near the Ward Street entry driveway, which meets the required ratio for the proposed 71,862 square feet gross floor area. Therefore, no additional loading spaces are required for the proposed project because the two existing off-street loading spaces already meet the Code requirement.

(3) Emergency Vehicle Access Factors such as number of access points, roadway width, and proximity to fire stations determine whether a project has sufficient emergency access. In this case, the proposed project would have multiple access points from the existing roadway network in the area. Therefore, if one of the roadways were to be blocked or obstructed, an emergency vehicle could use an alternative roadway to access the project. Based on these considerations, there would be no significant impacts associated with the planned emergency vehicle access e. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Circulation Analysis Pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation was reviewed based on the site plan and is discussed below.

(1) Pedestrian Access and Circulation There would be no new significant impacts to pedestrians associated with the proposed project. The project would result in additional pedestrian traffic, however, there are existing crosswalks and sidewalks on Milvia, Derby, and Ward Streets that would adequately serve the anticipated increase in pedestrian traffic.

(2) Bicycle Access and Circulation There would be no new significant impacts to bicycles associated with the proposed project. The project would result in additional bicycle traffic but the store would offer safe bike racks, free locks, and walk-in bike service to facilitate more customers bicycling to the store. Additionally, Sports Basement is a “Commuter Check for Bicycling” partner, where customers can redeem their Commuter Checks for purchasing bike equipment to enable more bicycle travel. This, in conjunction with the convenience to bicyclists of several streets around the projects site that are designated as Bike Boulevards, Bicycle Routes, and Bicycle Lanes, would help offset vehicle trips. The adjacent bike boulevards, routes, and lanes would help ensure safe bicycle access to the site.

Milvia Street is a Bicycle Boulevard. The project would not add much traffic on Milvia Street and thereby would have minimal impact on bicyclists. In addition, the intersection of Milvia Street and Derby Street is an all-way stop controlled intersection which eliminates all conflicting vehicular movements with the bicyclists, as all vehicles would have to stop at the intersection. Also, because of the all-way stop there would be good sight distance, which would make travel along Milvia Street safe for bicyclists. The intersection of Milvia Street and Ward

91 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Street is a two-way stop controlled intersection with stops signs on Ward Street. The stops signs on Ward Street would ensure right-of-way to bicyclists traveling along Milvia Street. Therefore, the project traffic would not significantly affect bicyclists using bike lanes routes, lanes, and the bike boulevard. f. Parking Demand Analysis This EIR provides an analysis of parking as a non-CEQA impact. Parking impacts are assessed as described below.

As part of the project review process, the applicant was encouraged by the City of Berkeley to provide an analysis of adjacent and nearby on-street parking spaces to ensure that sufficient parking spaces would be available to meet the project’s estimated demand. Additionally, the applicant was encouraged to reduce parking demand by enacting measures to encourage the use of non-auto methods of travel that would result in minimal adverse effects to project patrons, and so that any secondary effects (such as on air quality due to drivers searching for parking spaces, or parking in residential neighborhoods) would be minimized. As such, although not required by CEQA, parking conditions are evaluated in this document.

This analysis evaluates if the project’s estimated parking demand would be met by the project’s proposed parking supply or by the existing parking supply within a reasonable walking distance of the project site. The analysis compares the proposed parking supply with both the estimated demand and the City of Berkeley Municipal Code requirements.

(1) Project On-Site Parking Requirements The project proposes a total of 44 off-street parking spaces provided that the parking layout, pedestrian safety, street trees, landscaping, and all other approvals from the City have been obtained. The parking spaces would be located along the building walls that face Derby Street and Ward Street. The two parking lots would not be interconnected. Table IV.C-9 illustrates the project off- street parking requirements and proposed parking supply. As shown in the table, the proposed development at 2727 Milvia Street does not meet the City’s parking requirements and is deficient by nine spaces.

Based on Section 23E.52.080 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, bicycle parking spaces need to be provided for new construction at the ratio of one space per 2,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial space. Since the project would add 18,528 square feet of new gross floor area to the existing facility, at least nine new bicycle parking spaces are required. These required bicycle parking spaces must be located in either a locker or a rack suitable for secure locks, in a location approved by the City, preferably in the front door area. The proposed project would provide 64 bicycle parking spaces and an additional 40

92 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-9 PARKING DEMAND RATIO

Land Use Size City Requirement Total Required

Existing Building 53,334 16*

Additional Retail 18,528 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 37

Total Parking 53 Notes: * = existing spaces Source: City of Berkeley Zoning Code.

employee spaces within the store. This proposal exceeds the City’s requirement by 95 bicycle parking spaces. Secure bicycle parking is included as part of the TDM measures proposed by Sports Basement for the project, as described in previous sections of this report.

(2) Project Parking Demand To estimate the expected vehicle parking demand generated for the proposed project, a parking space occupancy count on a Saturday and a typical weekday at the Sunnyvale Sports Basement facility were surveyed. Parking demand observed at the Sunnyvale site is summarized in Table IV.C-10. The parking demand ratio for the weekday peak period was observed to be 2.32 parked vehicles per 1,000 square feet, while the weekend peak parking demand was observed to be 2.98 parked vehicles per 1,000 square feet. These numbers are consistent with rates for similar uses published in ITE Parking Generation (4th Edition).5 ITE estimates the average peak hour parking demand is 1.78 vehicles per 1,000 square feet and the 85th percentile is 2.40 vehicles per 1,000 square feet for comparable retail development.

Table IV.C-11 summarizes the Project parking demand based the parking demand ratio as observed at the Sunnyvale facility. As shown in Table IV.C-11, the proposed project is expected to result in an unmet parking demand of 120 parking spaces during the weekday peak hour and 167 parking spaces during the weekend peak hour.

On-street parking occupancy surveys were conducted in April 2011 on a typical weekday between the approximate hours of 4:00 PM and 6:30 PM, and a typical weekend Saturday between the approximate hours of 1:30 PM and 3:30 PM. A total of 52 block faces in the vicinity of the project site were surveyed, including blocks on Shattuck Avenue, Ward Street, Derby Street, Milvia Street, Stuart Street, Carleton Street, MLK Jr. Way, and Adeline Street. Where parking spaces were not marked with pavement striping, the number of parking spaces was estimated by

measuring block lengths and assuming approximately 25 feet per space. The

5 Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2010, Parking Generation, 4th Edition.

93 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-10 PROJECT DEMAND RATIO

Facility Size Total Parking Facility location (sq. ft.) Survey Date Survey Period Occupancy Demand

1:30 PM - 2:30 PM 106 2.12 26-Mar-11 2:30 PM - 3:30 PM 136 2.72 (Saturday) Sports Basement – 3:30 PM - 4:30 PM 149 2.98 50,000 Sunnyvale 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 56 1.12 29-Mar-11 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM 77 1.54 (Tuesday) 6:30 PM - 7:30 PM 116 2.32 Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

TABLE IV.C-11 PROJECT PARKING DEMAND

Facility Parking Size Demand Total Total Unmet Time Period (sq. ft.) Ratio Demand Supply Demand

Weekday Peak Hour 2.32 167 47 120 71,862 Weekend Peak Hour 2.98 214 47 167 Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

observed street locations, numbers of spaces per block face, and occupancy survey results are shown in Table IV.C-12 within two blocks of the project site.

Table IV.C-13 shows the parking occupancy adjacent to the project site on Derby Street, Ward Street, Milvia Street and Shattuck Avenue and is a subset of Table IV.C-12.

According to the survey results, of the approximately 719 on-street parking spaces in the study area’s 52 block faces listed in Table IV.C-12, approximately 42 percent were occupied during the weekday peak period between 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM. A total of 415 on-street parking spaces were available for parking during the weekday peak period. During the evening hours, most of the commercial developments on Shattuck Avenue, Parker Street, and Carleton Street are closed and ample on-street parking is available as a result. As shown in Table IV.C-13, approximately 38 percent of the on-street parking spaces within the study area were occupied during the Saturday peak period between 2:00 PM and 3:00 PM. A total of 448 on-street parking spaces were available for parking during the Saturday peak period. The project area is in the vicinity of Residential

94 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-12 ON-STREET PARKING OCCUPANCY IN PROJECT VICINITY (WITHIN TWO BLOCKS)

Occupancy Occupancy per Block per Block Face Face Weekday Saturday Time # of PM Peak Peak Block Face From To Limit Spaces 5:30–6:30 PM 2:00–3:00 PM

Shattuck Ave. W Stuart St. Ward St. 120 Mins 4 0 0% 0 0%

Shattuck Ave. E Stuart St. Ward St. 30 Mins 10 5 50% 1 10%

15 Mins 2 0 0% 0 0% Shattuck Ave. W Ward St. Derby St. 120 Mins 19 2 11% 6 32%

Shattuck Ave. E Ward St. Derby St. 24 Mins 7 2 29% 2 29%

U 1 0 0% 0 0% Shattuck Ave. W Derby St. Carleton St. 120 Mins 6 1 17% 0 0%

Shattuck Ave. E Derby St. Carleton St. 30 Mins 6 0 0% 0 0%

U 3 0 0% 1 33% Shattuck Ave. W Carleton St. Parker St. 180 Mins 14 3 21% 3 21%

U 7 0 0% 2 29% Shattuck Ave. E Carleton St. Parker St. 24 Mins 6 3 50% 2 33%

Stuart St. N Adeline St Milvia St U 10 3 30% 5 50%

Stuart St. S Adeline St Milvia St U 9 7 78% 9 100%

Stuart St. N Milvia St MLK Jr. Way U 22 14 64% 13 59%

Stuart St. S Milvia St MLK Jr. Way U 19 11 58% 13 68%

24 Mins 1 0 0% 0 0% Ward St. N Fulton St. Shattuck Ave. 120 Mins 18 12 67% 14 78%

Ward St. S Fulton St. Shattuck Ave. 120 Mins 21 15 71% 15 71%

Ward St. N Adeline St. Milvia St. U 32 17 53% 11 34%

Ward St. S Adeline St. Milvia St. U 4 4 100% 2 50%

Ward St. N Milvia St MLK Jr. Way U 25 9 36% 3 12%

Ward St. S Milvia St MLK Jr. Way U 17 9 53% 7 41%

Derby St. N Fulton St. Shattuck Ave. 120 Mins 21 11 52% 7 33%

Derby St. S Fulton St. Shattuck Ave. 120 Mins 17 11 65% 14 82%

Derby St. N Shattuck Ave. Milvia St. U 16 4 25% 5 31%

U 30 1 3% 3 10% Derby St. S Shattuck Ave. Milvia St. 60 Mins 3 1 33% 0 0%

Derby St. N Milvia St. MLK Jr. Way U 19 9 47% 0 0%

95 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-12 ON-STREET PARKING OCCUPANCY IN PROJECT VICINITY (WITHIN TWO BLOCKS) (CONTINUED)

Occupancy Occupancy per Block per Block Face Face Weekday Saturday Time # of PM Peak Peak Block Face From To Limit Spaces 5:30–6:30 PM 2:00–3:00 PM

Derby St. S Milvia St. MLK Jr. Way U 32 14 44% 0 0%

60 Mins 2 1 50% 1 50%

Carleton St. N Fulton St. Shattuck Ave. 120 Mins 13 9 69% 10 77%

24 Mins 2 1 50% 1 50%

Carleton St. S Fulton St. Shattuck Ave. 120 Mins 15 11 73% 11 73%

Carleton St. N Shattuck Ave. Milvia St. 120 Mins 19 4 21% 10 53%

Carleton St. S Shattuck Ave. Milvia St. U 25 14 56% 11 44%

Carleton St. N Milvia St. MLK Jr. Way 120 Mins 20 7 35% 9 45%

Carleton St. S Milvia St. MLK Jr. Way U 27 16 59% 10 37%

MLK Jr. Way W Oregon St Stuart St U 6 3 50% 2 33%

MLK Jr. Way E Oregon St Stuart St U 10 4 40% 3 30%

MLK Jr. Way W Stuart St. Ward St. U 10 5 50% 6 60%

MLK Jr. Way E Stuart St. Ward St. U 6 0 0% 1 17%

24 Mins 1 0 0% 0 0% MLK Jr. Way W Ward St. Derby St. U 8 5 63% 4 50%

MLK Jr. Way E Ward St. Derby St. U 6 0 0% 0 0%

MLK Jr. Way W Derby St. Carleton St. U 8 3 38% 6 75%

MLK Jr. Way E Derby St. Carleton St. U 8 7 88% 2 25%

MLK Jr. Way W Carleton St. Parker St. U 7 5 71% 2 29%

MLK Jr. Way E Carleton St. Parker St. 120 Mins 8 0 0% 1 13%

Milvia St. W Stuart St. Ward St. U 11 9 82% 9 82%

Milvia St. E Stuart St. Ward St. U 11 5 45% 8 73%

Milvia St. W Ward St. Derby St. U 7 2 29% 0 0%

Milvia St. E Ward St. Derby St. U 11 0 0% 1 9%

Milvia St. W Derby St. Carleton St. U 10 5 50% 2 20%

Milvia St. E Derby St. Carleton St. U 10 3 30% 2 20%

Milvia St. W Carleton St. Parker St. 120 Mins 11 3 27% 1 9%

Milvia St. E Carleton St. Parker St. 120 Mins 9 0 0% 2 22%

96 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-12 ON-STREET PARKING OCCUPANCY IN PROJECT VICINITY (WITHIN TWO BLOCKS) (CONTINUED)

Occupancy Occupancy per Block per Block Face Face Weekday Saturday Time # of PM Peak Peak Block Face From To Limit Spaces 5:30–6:30 PM 2:00–3:00 PM

Adeline St W Oregon St Stuart St U 9 9 100% 6 67%

Adeline St E Oregon St Stuart St 120 Mins 8 0 0% 0 0%

24 Mins 5 0 25% 2 40% Adeline St W Stuart St. Ward St. U 8 3 38% 8 100%

Adeline St E Stuart St. Ward St. 120 Mins 7 2 29% 2 29%

Study Area Parking Space Supply 719

Spaces Occupied 304 42% 271 38%

Number of Unregulated Spaces 444 62% of total

Number of Regulated Spaces 275 38% of total Note: In time limit column, XXX minutes indicates restricted short-term parking for XXX minutes from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. U = Unregulated parking. Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011

Permit Parking Area C and Area J. Area C limits parking to 2 hours unless a residential permit parking or visitor permit is properly displayed on the vehicle. Area C parking is restricted to 2-hour parking between 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM Area J permit parking is also restricted to 2 hours unless a residential permit parking or visitor permit is properly displayed on the vehicle.

Traffic engineers typically consider a parking occupancy rate of 85 percent or more to be “full.” The survey results show that on-street parking overall is typically about half full during the weekday evening and weekend peak periods in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore ample on-street parking is available for the project traffic. Based on field observations, the average time spent in a parking lot by a vehicle at the Sports Basement stores in Sunnyvale and San Francisco is anywhere between 30 minutes and 1 hour. Most of the restricted parking around the proposed project allows for at least 2-hour parking. Therefore, ample on-street parking is available to accommodate the proposed project’s unmet on-site parking demand.

According to the survey, there are 131 on-street parking spaces adjacent to the project site on Derby Street, Ward Street, Milvia Street and Shattuck Avenue. The

97 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

TABLE IV.C-13 ON-STREET PARKING OCCUPANCY IN PROJECT VICINITY ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE

Occupancy Occupancy per Block per Block Face Face Weekday Saturday Time # of PM Peak Peak Block Face From To Limit Spaces 5:30–6:30 PM 5:30–6:30 PM

15 Mins 2 0 0% 0 0% Shattuck Ave. W Ward St. Derby St. 120 Mins 19 2 11% 6 32%

Shattuck Ave. E Ward St. Derby St. 24 Mins 7 2 29% 2 29%

Ward St. N Adeline St. Milvia St. U 32 17 53% 11 34%

Ward St. S Adeline St. Milvia St. U 4 4 100% 2 50%

Derby St. N Shattuck Ave. Milvia St. U 16 4 25% 5 31%

U 30 1 3% 3 10% Derby St. S Shattuck Ave. Milvia St. 60 Mins 3 1 33% 0 0%

Milvia St. W Ward St. Derby St. U 7 2 29% 0 0%

Milvia St. E Ward St. Derby St. U 11 0 0% 1 9%

Study Area Parking Space Supply 131

Spaces Occupied 33 25% 30 23%

Number of Spaces Available for Parking 98 101 Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011.

existing parking demand on a typical weekday is for 33 spaces, which is approximately 25 percent occupancy, and on a Saturday is for 30 spaces, which is approximately 23 percent occupancy. Based on this survey finding, approximately 100 spaces adjacent to the project site are available for Sports Basement Parking, which does not fully accommodate the unmet parking demand shown in Table IV.C-11. Table IV.C-13 summarizes the parking demand and occupancy adjacent to the site.

Based on these on-street parking survey findings, on-street parking spaces available immediately adjacent to the project site do not fully accommodate the unmet parking demand for the proposed project. However, as shown in Table IV.C-12, there is ample on-street parking available within the two-block radius of the project to accommodate the unmet parking demand; it is not uncommon for customers to park up to two blocks away from a destination. Overall, by combining this surplus of on-street parking with the on-site parking supply, the project is expected to have enough parking available.

98 V. ALTERNATIVES

The CEQA Guidelines require analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.1 An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.

The primary purpose of this chapter is to ascertain whether there are alternatives of design, scale, land use, or location that would substantially lessen the project’s significant impacts, even if those alternatives “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.”2

The three CEQA project alternatives to the proposed project considered include: . No Project/No Build Alternative . No Project/Ice Skating Rink Refurbishment Alternative . Retail/Maintain Earthen Berms Alternative

In considering the range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR, the CEQA Guidelines state that an alternative site/location should be considered when feasible alternative locations are available and the “significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.” No specific alternative site locations are considered in this EIR. Reloca- tion of the project to another location, if one were available, may eliminate the impact to this site, but would likely result in some of the same impacts and possibly others at the alternative site, such as traffic, parking, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. However, because the proposed project objectives seek to adaptively reuse and rehabilitate the historic Berkeley Iceland building, studying an off-site alternative would fail to achieve a fundamental project objective. As such, an alternative site location is not considered.

The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows: overview of project objectives and impacts; description and analysis of CEQA project alternatives; and discussion of environmentally-superior alternatives.

1 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6. 2 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(b).

101 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND IMPACTS

To determine what range of alternatives should be considered, the impacts identified for the proposed project were considered along with the project objectives. The proposed project is described in detail in Chapter III, Project Description, and the potential environmental effects of the proposed project are analyzed in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The project objectives and impacts are summarized below.

1. Project Objectives

The Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse Project seeks to rehabilitate the 53,334 square-foot Berkeley Iceland building and convert the building to commercial retail use. Specifically, the project seeks to:

1. Adaptively reuse, seismically retrofit, and to the extent feasible, rehabilitate the historic Iceland building in a manner consistent with the Secretary of In- terior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.

2. Provide additional off-street parking on the project site.

3. Provide sufficient square footage to make economically feasible the use of the building for the proposed retail uses.

4. Renovate the building exterior and remove current blight (e.g., graffiti, broken windows) and preserve historic integrity.

5. Preserve the character defining features of the interior of the Iceland building, including the volume of the interior space, the metal truss structural system, and the Winterland mural.

6. Retrofit the building to meet current ADA standards.

2. Project Impacts

As discussed in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, and in the Initial Study, and as shown in Table II-1, the project would result in a number of potentially significant impacts. Most of the impacts identified could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures or standard conditions of approval; however, some of the project impacts may be significant and unavoidable.

Impacts that may not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level and could remain significant (identified as SU in Table II-1) are identified for the following topics: . Historic Resources . Greenhouse Gas Emissions . Transportation and Circulation

102 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives analysis in this chapter focuses on these impacts and the ability of the alternative to avoid or reduce them.

The project could also result in potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of City of Berkeley Standard Conditions of Approval (SCA) or recommended mitigation measures (MM), which are identified for the following topics in the Initial Study:

. Air Quality . Biological Resources . Cultural Resources (excluding historic resources) . Geology and Soils . Hazards and Hazardous Materials . Hydrology and Water Quality . Noise

The Initial Study concludes that impacts would be less than significant for all other environmental topics.

The alternatives analysis considers alternatives that would further reduce or avoid remaining significant and unavoidable impacts.

B. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Using the project objectives and the significant impacts presented above, the City selected a reasonable range of project alternatives to be analyzed within the EIR. The alternatives analyzed below include the following: . No Project/No Build alternative . No Project/Ice Skating Rink Refurbishment alternative . Retail/Maintain Earthen Berms Alternative

Additionally the City considered several additional alternatives but rejected each of them from further consideration as they did not meet most of the project objectives and/or mitigate project impacts. These included:

. Reuse of the building for an indoor recreation use; this alternative would not meet the project objectives of establishing an economically viable and retail use.

. Redevelopment of the site with mix of residential and commercial uses which could include reestablishment of an ice rink within the existing building; this

103 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

alternative would be more intense and would likely compromise the historic integrity of the building resulting in more adverse impacts than the proposed project.

1. No Project/No Build Alternative a. Description The No Project/No Build alternative assumes that the project site would remain in its current condition and would not be subject to development. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no development would occur on the project site and existing conditions would remain: the site would be fenced off and the building would remain vacant until another viable alternative is proposed. In this alternative, the site and building would also most likely continue to be the subject of vandalism and the conditions would continue to deteriorate. No preservation or renovation of the existing building would be completed, the earthen berms would remain as is, no new vehicle trips would be generated at adjacent intersections, and no new on-site parking would be constructed. b. Impact Analysis Implementation of the No Project/No Build alternative would, at least in the short term, avoid any approved alterations3 to the Iceland structure, which is a historic resource under CEQA as noted in Chapter IV, Cultural/Historic Resources. The No Project/No Build alternative would not result in any of the impacts identified for the project in the Initial Study or this EIR.

Because the berms would not be removed, the significant historic resource impact identified for the project would be avoided. Additionally, the impacts identified relative to potential damage to street trees, GHG emissions, and intersection operations would not occur. c. Conclusion The No Project/No Build alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project. The project site would not undergo redevelopment, the visual and community character of the neighborhood would not be enhanced, none of the beneficial effects of renovation and preservation of the structure that would result from implementation of the proposed project would be realized, and no commercial development would be constructed on the project site.

3 The building is currently subject to squatters, vandalism, and graffiti. In the past year the Fire Department had to make two emergency visits to the site due to fires set within the building.

104 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

2. No Project/Ice Skating Rink Refurbishment Alternative a. Description The No Project/Ice Skating Rink Refurbishment alternative assumes that the project site would be rehabilitated and the ice rink and its related facilities refur- bished to a usable state. Under the No Project/Ice Skating Rink Refurbishment Alternative, limited development would occur on the project site to restore the exterior and interior of the building so that the site and building would again be used by residents in the City of Berkeley and the surrounding area. Preservation and renovation of the existing building would be completed, and the earthen berms would not be removed. b. Impact Analysis Implementation of the No Project/Ice Skating Rink Refurbishment alternative would avoid any structural alterations to the Iceland structure, which is a historic resource under CEQA as noted in Chapter IV, Historic Resources. The No Pro- ject/Ice Skating Rink Refurbishment alternative would not result in any of the historic resources impacts identified for the project because the berms would not be removed, the significant historic resource impact identified for the project would be avoided. Additionally, the impacts identified relative to potential damage to street trees, would not occur.

Trips expected to be generated by this alternative would be 126 trips during the weekday PM peak period as compared to 183 trips for the proposed project. The reduction in trips would likely reduce the significant project and cumulative impacts identified for the project at the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street to a less-than-significant level as the increase in delay would be less than three seconds. Parking demand is expected to be 23 spaces during the weekday peak period as compared to 167 spaces for the proposed project. No new on-site parking would be constructed. However consistent with the discussion in Chap- ter IV.C Transportation and Circulation, it is anticipated that on-street parking spaces available adjacent to the project site would be available to accommodate parking demand for this alternative similar to the proposed project.

This alternative is likely to result in the same greenhouse gas cumulative significant impact as the proposed project. c. Conclusion The No Project/Ice Skating Rink Refurbishment alternative would not achieve one of the key objectives of the proposed project related to providing additional off-street parking on the project site. This alternative would likely result in some of the same impacts, such as traffic, parking, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions.

105 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

3. Retail/Maintain Earthen Berms Alternative a. Description

The Retail/Maintain Earthen Berms alternative provides for preservation of the existing earthen berms, which would reduce the amount of available floor area for the retail project and preclude the additional off-street parking that is proposed as part of the project. Other key elements of the proposed project that would be at least partially implemented include:

. Reuse of the 53,334 square-foot Berkeley Iceland structure.

. Construction of a new 18,528-square-foot mezzanine level along the north and south sides of the building.

. Preservation of the majority of the interior floor area and rooms and other miscellaneous interior improvements as described in the Project Description, such as mural restoration.

. Preservation and enhancement (e.g., removal of graffiti, replacement of broken windows) of the exterior’s reinforced concrete Streamline Moderne-style architectural details.

. Replacement of the roof material with a new Thermoplastic Olefin (TPO) single-ply “cool roof”, install new sheathing and insulation, and possibly install solar panel.

. The proposed project would increase off-street parking by 28 spaces, from 16 spaces to 44 spaces. Implementation of this alternative would result in 28 fewer parking spaces than the proposed project.

The overall square footage of the retail area would be reduced by approximately 12,000 square feet as maintaining the interior berms would reduce the amount of useable ground floor area. Once complete, the total floor area would be 59,682 square feet as compared to 71,682 for the proposed project. b. Impact Analysis Implementation of this alternative would result in impacts similar to the proposed project for almost all of the environmental topics considered in the Initial Study and this EIR except:

. Berm removal. The berms on the north and south sides of the building would not be removed under the Retail/Maintain Earthen Berms alternative, therefore, implementation of this alternative would avoid the significant unavoidable historic resource impact identified for the project by retaining the exterior and interior character of the entire site.

. Construction-period impacts. The project would result in potential construction-related impacts that are less than significant or could be addressed by mitigation measures and/or standard conditions of approval: air quality, cultural/archeological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous waste, hydrology and water quality, noise, GHG emissions, and transporta-

106 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

tion and circulation. These impacts would be incrementally reduced under the Retail/Maintain Earthen Berms alternative because the volume of soil being excavated from the site would be substantially less, i.e. approximately 5,500 cubic yards.

. Intersections. The impact of this alternative on project intersections would be similar to the proposed project. It is not anticipated that the reduction of 12,000 square feet would reduce the impact at the intersection of MLK Jr. Way and Ward Street to a less-than-significant level.

. Parking. The issue of parking for the proposed project is addressed as a non- CEQA impact in Chapter IV, C, Transportation and Circulation. Implementa- tion of the Retail/Maintain Earthen Berms alternative would increase the unmet demand (see Table IV.C-11) by 28 spaces during both the weekday peak hour and the weekend peak hour. This would result in an unmet demand of 148 spaces during the weekday peak hour and 195 spaces during the weekend peak hour. As shown in Table IV.C-12, it is estimated that within a two- block radius of the project site there are approximately 415 spaces available during the weekday peak hour and 448 spaces during the weekend peak hour. As a result, similar to the proposed project, it is expected that there would be adequate parking available to serve the Retail/Maintain Earthen Berm alternative. However, the applicant has expressed concern that reliance on on-street parking is unreasonable because some customers will require parking close to the store for large purchases, due to limited mobility, or for other reasons, and that the project would be infeasible without additional off- street parking. c. Conclusion

The Retail/Maintain Earthen Berm alternative would not achieve one of the key project objectives of providing additional off-street parking, which is critical for store operations. The alternative would avoid the significant impact to historic resources as it would not remove the berms.

C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

CEQA requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. This EIR concludes that the No Project/No Build alternative or the No Project/Ice Skat- ing Rink Refurbishment alternative is the environmentally superior alternative in the strict sense that environmental impacts associated with its implementation would be the least of all the alternatives examined, to the extent that no construction activity would occur. Additionally, in the case of the No Build alternative, no operational activity would occur at the site. To maintain the project site in its current condition, or reestablish an ice rink would avoid or substantially reduce each of the significant impacts that would result from the Berkeley Ice- land Adaptive Reuse Project. However, the No Project/No Build alternative would not realize any of the beneficial impacts of the proposed project, including en-

107 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES hancement of a City Landmark. If the No Project/Ice Skating Rink Refurbishment alternative is found to be financially feasible, has a willing project sponsor, and as a result could be implemented, it would be environmentally superior to the proposed project as it would not significantly impact a City landmark. However, it would not result in some of the beneficial impacts of the proposed project and achieve several of the key project objectives.

Where the No Project is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires that the second most environmentally superior alternative be identified. Compar- ison of the environmental impacts associated with each alternative as described above, indicates that the Retail/Maintain Earthen Berm alternative would represent the next-best alternative in terms of the fewest significant environmental impacts.

108 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS

As required by CEQA, this chapter discusses the following types of impacts that could result from implementation of the Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project: effects found not to be significant, growth-inducing impacts, unavoidable significant effects, significant irreversible changes, and cumulative impacts.

A. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

Meetings with representatives of the City of Berkeley involved in the planning and review of development projects were held to determine the preliminary scope of the Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse EIR. In addition to these meetings, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated on September 7, 2011 and a public scoping meeting was held on September 22, 2011 at the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) and October 6, 2011 at the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to solicit comments from the public about the scope of this EIR. Written comments received on the NOP were considered in the preparation of the final scope for this document and in the evaluation of the proposed project.

The environmental topics analyzed in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, represent those topics that generated the greatest potential controversy and expectation of adverse impacts by City staff and members of the public, and were determined based on preliminary analysis in the Initial Study to warrant further analysis in the EIR. The following topics were excluded from discussion in the EIR because it was determined in the Initial Study and during the scoping phase that these impacts would be less-than-significant: Aesthetics, Agricultural/Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recre- ation, and Utilities and Service Systems. A detailed description of the Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project’s impacts related to each of these topics is provided in the Initial Study (see Appendix A).

B. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS

A project is considered growth inducing if it would directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing.1 Ex- amples of projects likely to have significant growth-inducing impacts include extensions or expansions of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand, and development of new residential subdivisions

1 CEQA Guidelines, 2007, Section 15162.2 (d).

109 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS

or industrial parks in areas that are currently only sparsely developed or undeveloped.

The proposed project would not have any growth inducement effects. The project site is in a developed area fully served by public utilities. There are no significant areas that are undeveloped adjacent to the project site. Additionally, the project would not remove any obstacles that would help facilitate growth that could significantly affect the physical environment.

Indirect population growth associated with the proposed project could occur in association with job creation. The economic stimulus generated by construction and restoration work on the proposed project could result in the creation of or maintenance of construction and restoration-related jobs. In addition, commercial square footage that would be built as part of the project could generate approximately 65 to 80 employees. However, the jobs created during both the construction and operation phases of the project would not be substantial in the context of job growth in Berkeley and the region. Although some of the employees generated by the proposed project may decide to live in Berkeley, the migra- tion of these employees into the City would not result in a substantial population increase as new employees would primarily be hired from residents who live within the commuting distance of the proposed location.

In addition, the proposed project would occur on an infill site in an existing ur- banized neighborhood in Berkeley. It would not result in the extension of utilities or roads into exurban areas, and would not directly or indirectly lead to the development of greenfield sites in the East Bay.

C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

As discussed in each topical section in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts, and Mitiga- tion Measures, the project would result in the significant unavoidable and cumulative impacts discussed below.

The project would exceed the BAAQMD threshold for a significant contribution to GHG emissions that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level except as there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond the features already incorporated into the project that would significantly reduce or minimize the project’s GHG emissions. As a result, this impact would remain significant unavoidable.

Implementation of the Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project would result in significant unavoidable project-level impacts related to Historic Resources. Alt- hough measures are available, to mitigate this impact, they would prevent the project from meeting its basic objective and the project applicant does not con-

110 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS

sider them feasible. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Traffic impacts of the project would be significant at one intersection under Existing plus Approved Project plus Project conditions, and under Cumulative 2035 plus Project conditions. Mitigation is available in the form of turn restrictions; however, this mitigation may not be feasible for funding or functional reasons, and the impact may, therefore, be significant and unavoidable.

D. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES

An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could result from implementation of a proposed project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary or growth- inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. CEQA dictates that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.2 The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes: (1) changes in land use that would commit future generations, (2) irreversible changes from environmental actions, and (3) consumption of non-renewable resources.

1. Changes in Land Use Which Commit Future Generations

The proposed project would allow for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Berkeley Iceland building largely consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and would convert the building to commercial retail use. Changes to the interior of the building would be largely reversible in the event the site were to be converted back to a skating rink.

The project site is located in south Berkeley and is surrounded by a mixture of commercial, residential, educational, and light industrial uses. The proposed use is consistent with the current land use designation of CS-A South Area Commer- cial. As such, the project would not create changes in land use which commit future generations.

2. Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents

No significant environmental damage, such as accidental spills or explosion of a hazardous material, is anticipated with development of the Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project. The Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project does not propose the use of hazardous materials (beyond standard construction supplies and commercial cleaning supplies), nor are any hazardous materials present on the project site beyond those that would be handled according to standard prac-

2 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(c).

111 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS

tice during renovation, such as asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint. No other potential environmental effects of the Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project (e.g., traffic, greenhouse gas emissions) would reach the point of creating irreversible damage from foreseeable accidents given the land uses proposed. As such, the Berkley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project would not result in new significant irreversible damage from environmental accidents or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to environmental accidents.

3. Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources

Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes conversion of agricultural lands, loss of access to mining reserves, and use of non-renewable energy sources. The project site is located within an urban area of Berkeley; no agricultural land would be converted to nonagricultural uses. The project site does not contain known mineral resources and does not serve as a mining reserve.

Construction of the proposed project would require the use of energy, including energy produced from non-renewable resources. Energy consumption would also occur during the operational period of the proposed project due to the use of automobiles and commercial equipment. However, the proposed project would not result in new significant irreversible damage from consumption of nonrenewable resources or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to consumption of nonrenewable resources.

E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound or increase other environmental impacts.”3 Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Per Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of potential future projects. Cumulative effects of the Berkeley Iceland Adaptive Reuse project are discussed in the respective topics in Chapter IV, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. Significant cumulative impacts include GHG emissions and future intersection Level of Service.

3 CEQA Guidelines, 2007, Section 15355.

112 VII. REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES

The Draft EIR was prepared by the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consultants under the direction of Leslie Mendez, Associate Planner, and Steven Buckley, Principal Planner for the City of Berkeley

A. PREPARERS

EIR Preparation and Management Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Lynette Dias, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Anne Koeller, Planner Susan Smith, Word Processing 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 5th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 251-8210

Historic Resources William Self Associates, Inc. Jim Allen Aimee Arrigoni 61-D Avenida de Orinda Orinda, CA 94563 (925) 253-9070

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Illingworth & Rodkin James Reyff Michael Thill 505 Petaluma Blvd. South Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 766-7700 phone

Transportation and Circulation TJKM Transportation Consultants Joy Bhattacharya Pawan Mulukutla 3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 200 Pleasanton, CA 94588-8526 (925) 463-0611

113 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 VII. REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES

B. REFERENCES

Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Transportation Model.

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), www.abag.ca.gov, accessed May 2011.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. May.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds of Significance. June.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2008. CEQA and Climate Change. January.

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2008. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan. June.

California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Available at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF.

California Office of Historic Preservation, 2006:3. California Register and Nation- al Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the Califor- nia Register). Technical Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

California Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2006. Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill (Governor’s Climate Change Initiative). Available at: http://www.lao.ca.gov/ analysis_2006/resources/res_04_anl06.html.

CARB, CCAR, ICLEI, and the Climate Registry, 2010. Local Government Opera- tions Protocol For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories, Version 1.1. May.

CEQA Guidelines 2011.

Cerny, Susan Dinkenspiel, 1994. Berkeley Landmarks. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley, CA.

City of Berkeley, 2009. Climate Action Plan. June.

City of Berkeley, General Plan, Environmental Management (2003).

City of Berkeley, 2001. General Plan: A Guide for Public Decision-Making.

114 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR VII. REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES

City of Berkeley, Municipal Code.

City of Berkeley, 1999. Zoning Ordinance.

Cook, Sherburne F., 1943. The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. Ibero-Americana, 22. Berkeley, CA.

Cook, Sherburne F., 1957. The Aboriginal Populations of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, University of California Anthropological Records, 16(4). Berkeley, CA.

Diablo Green Consulting, Inc., 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 2727 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Alameda County, California 94703. January.

Ferrier, William Warren, 1933. Berkeley, California: The Story Of The Evolution Of A Hamlet Into A City of Culture and Commerce. William W. Ferrier, Berkeley, CA.

Hendry, George W. and Jacob N. Bowman, 1940. The Spanish and Mexican adobe and other buildings in the nine San Francisco Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850. Ms. on file at the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2010. Parking Generation 4th Edition. July.

Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2008. Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. Decem- ber.

IPCC, 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Man- ning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/.

Judd, D.R., 1984. Early Days in Temescal. Oakland Heritage Alliance Newsletter. 4(1):1-6.

Levy, Richard, 1978. Costanoan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, Robert F. Heizer, editor, pp. 485-495. Smithsonian Institution, Wash- ington, D.C.

LSA, 2010. Berkeley Unified School District, Traffic Impact Analysis, East Campus Sports Fields, Berkeley California. February.

Page & Turnbull, 2010. Berkeley Iceland Historic Resource Evaluation. Page & Turnbull, Inc., San Francisco, CA. Prepared for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, San Francisco, CA. November.

Public Resources Code 21083.

115 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR NOVEMBER 2011 VII. REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES

Schwartz, Richard, 2000. Berkeley 1900: Daily Life at the Turn of the Century. RSB Books, Berkeley, CA.

Sher, Sandra, 1994. The Native Legacy of Emeryville. The Journal of the Em- eryville Historical Society 5(2): 6.

State of California Office of Planning and Research, 2011. CEQA Guidelines.

Test America, Analytical Report for Berkeley Iceland. May.

TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011. Draft Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Sports Basement in the City of Berkeley, May.

Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual, Washington D.C.

Turnbull, Jay, 2011. Letter to Steven Buckley Re: Historic Resource Analysis for Berkeley Iceland Project. Page & Turnbull, Inc., San Francisco, CA. September 13.

US Environmental Planning Agency (US EPA), 2008. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2006. April.

US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2011. 2011 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2009. (April 2011) USEPA #430-R-11-005.

Zoning Project Application, Plans, and related information in project file.

C. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Email dated June 15, 2011 by Byron White, Officer, Operations Division Area Coordinator – Area 1, City of Berkeley Police Department.

116 NOVEMBER 2011 BERKELEY ICELAND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT EIR IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

(3) Farmer’s Market Parking A weekly Farmers Market is held on Derby Street every Tuesday afternoon from 2:00 PM to 7:00 PM. The Traffic Impact Analysis Report conducted for the Berkeley Unified School District’s East Campus Sports Fields (East Campus TIA)6 project was reviewed to provide a qualitative discussion on the impact of Farmer’s Market on on-street parking near the proposed project. According to the study, when the Farmer’s Market is open every Tuesday, the peak parking occupancy with the Sports Fields project would be 99 percent and the peak demand would be at around 2:00 PM However, based on the parking occupancy survey conducted by TJKM for the proposed project, the typical weekday (other than Tuesday) peak parking occupancy is approximately 42 percent and the peak hour is between 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM.

Based on the East Campus TIA, the parking occupancy on a Tuesday at 5:30 PM is 592 spaces or is approximately 79 percent full. Therefore, there are approximately 155 on-street parking spaces available during the peak parking demand period for the proposed Sports Basement project (i.e., 5:30 PM). As shown in Table IV.C-11, the additional number of parking spaces needed for the proposed project on a weekday is 120 spaces. Therefore, even on days when the Farmers Market is open the parking demand for the proposed project would be met.

Additionally, the East Campus TIA did not include the following streets for the parking occupancy survey since they were further away from the East Campus project but closer to the proposed project. . MLK Jr. Way between Ward Street and Oregon Street . Shattuck Avenue between Stuart Street and Ward Street . Derby Street between Fulton Street and Shattuck Avenue . Ward Street between Fulton Street and Shattuck Avenue . Carleton Street between Fulton Street and Shattuck Avenue . Adeline Street between Oregon Street and Ward Street . Stuart Street between Adeline Street and MLK Jr. Way

These street segments will add to available parking supply for Sports basement in the vicinity of the project on the days when farmers market will be open. Therefore, the parking demand for the proposed project will be met even during Farmers Markets’ peak parking demand period.

6 East Campus Sports Fields TIA, Berkeley, CA.