DOCSLIB.ORG

2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report SCH #2017012011 prepared by City of Berkeley Planning Department Land Use Division 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, California 94704 Staff Contact: Leslie Mendez, Senior Planner prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street Oakland, California 94612 August 2017 This report was printed on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content. Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 Lead Agency and Contact Person .................................................................................. 1 Project Sponsor ............................................................................................................. 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................. 1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 1 Site Preparation and Construction .................................................................................. 2 Requested Entitlements ................................................................................................. 2 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 15 1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background ......................................................... 15 1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority .............................................................................. 17 1.3 Scope and Content ............................................................................................ 17 1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ......................................................... 20 1.5 Environmental Review Process ......................................................................... 20 2 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 23 2.1 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ............................................................... 23 2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................. 23 2.3 Current Land Use .............................................................................................. 23 2.4 Surrounding Land Uses ..................................................................................... 28 2.5 Land Use Regulatory Overview ......................................................................... 29 2.6 Project Characteristics ....................................................................................... 33 2.7 Project Objectives .............................................................................................. 52 3 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 53 3.1 Regional Setting ................................................................................................ 53 3.2 Project Site Setting ............................................................................................ 53 3.3 Cumulative Development ................................................................................... 54 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................... 57 4.1 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 59 4.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 79 4.3 Geology and Soils............................................................................................ 113 4.4 Noise and Vibration ......................................................................................... 121 4.5 Transportation/Traffic ....................................................................................... 147 5 Energy ....................................................................................................................... 189 5.1 Energy Use and Conservation ......................................................................... 189 6 Project Alternatives .................................................................................................... 197 6.2 Alternatives Considered but Rejected .............................................................. 199 6.3 Alternative 1: No Project .................................................................................. 199 6.4 Alternative 2: Reduced Parking........................................................................ 200 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................... 205 7 References and Report Preparers .............................................................................. 207 7.1 Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 207 7.2 List of Preparers .............................................................................................. 211 Environmental Impact Report i City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project Tables Table 1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts ............................................................................................................... 6 Table 2 Notice of Preparation Comments and Environmental Impact Report Response .15 Table 3 Comments from Zoning Adjustments Board.......................................................16 Table 4 Existing Site Characteristics ..............................................................................28 Table 5 Project Summary ...............................................................................................33 Table 6 Residential Unit Summary .................................................................................34 Table 7 Cumulative Projects in Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan Study Area .................55 Table 8 Ambient Air Quality Standards & Basin Attainment Status .................................62 Table 9 Ambient Air Quality Data....................................................................................63 Table 10 Construction Emissions .....................................................................................71 Table 11 Operational Emissions .......................................................................................73 Table 12 Screening Data for Stationary Sources (within 1,000 feet of project site) ...........74 Table 13 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures ..............................................................76 Table 14 Contributors to Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District in Vicinity of Project Site ....................................................................................................80 Table 15 Historic Structures within 200 Feet of Proposed Construction Area ...................97 Table 16 Photosimulation View Locations ........................................................................98 Table 17 Noise Measurement Results ............................................................................123 Table 18 City of Berkeley Exterior Noise Limits ..............................................................125 Table 19 City of Berkeley Interior Noise Limits ............................................................... 125 Table 20 Construction Noise Standards .........................................................................126 Table 21 Vibration-Related Building Damage Thresholds ...............................................133 Table 22 Maximum Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase ...............................135 Table 23 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment at Noise-Sensitive Receptors and Historic Buildings ......................................................................................138 Table 24 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment at Historic Buildings ................... 139 Table 25 Increase in Existing Area Roadway Traffic Volumes with Project during A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours .......................................................................................142 Table 26 Cumulative Contribution to Area Roadway Traffic Levels during A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours in Future Year 2040 ......................................................................145 Table 27 Intersection Level of Service Criteria – Signalized Intersections ...................... 165 Table 28 Intersection Level of Service – Baseline Conditions .........................................167 Table 29 Person-Trip Generation Rates and Estimates ..................................................168 Table 30 Person-Trip Generation Estimates by Mode – Proposed Project ..................... 168 Table 31 Net New Project Vehicle-Trip Estimates – Proposed Project ........................... 168 Table 32 Intersection Level of Service – Baseline plus Project Conditions ..................... 171 Table 33 AC Transit Ridership ........................................................................................ 182 Table 34 Vehicles Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative plus Project Conditions ... 186 Table 35 Project Energy Use Relative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Improvement Project
    FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION S TATE C LEARINGHOUSE N UMBER: 2015052053 Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Improvement Project P REPARED F OR: - 22) San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District -2688 P.O. Box 12688 (Mail Stop LKS Oakland, CA 94604 -7423 Contact: Janie Layton (510) 874 P REPARED BY: nd Floor ICF International 620 Folsom Street, 2 San Francisco, CA 94107 (415 677-7162 Contact: Aaron Carter ) 2015 July In July ICF International. 2015. Final itial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Improvement Project. (ICF 00036.14.) San Francisco, CA. Prepared for San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District, Oakland, CA. Introduction ImprovementThe San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Project (Project). On May 20, 2015, BART published a Draft Initial -Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which analyzed the potential impacts of the Project. Pursuant to Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft IS/MND provided for a 30 day public and Clearinghouseagency review period from May 20, 2015, to June 18, 2015. The- Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent (NOA/NOI) to adopt the MND was posted with, the Alameda County Clerk and the State , mailed to all owners and occupants within 1/8 mile of the Project site, emailed to the Project’s list of interested people and organizations and made available on the BART website.. T A public meeting was conducted on June 1, 2015, at Commentsthe City of andBerkeley Responses Central Library, to receive public comments on the IS/MND.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Berkeley Downto W N Area Plan
    City of Berkeley Downtown Area Plan Historic Resource Evaluation 5 November 2008 prepared for Lamphier-Gregory Urban Planning & Environmental Analysis Oakland, CA prepared by Architectural Resources Group Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc. San Francisco, CA Historic Resources Evaluation City of Berkeley, Downtown Area Plan 5 November 2008 I. OVERVIEW/INTRODUCTION At the request of Lamphier‐Gregory, Architectural Resources Group (ARG) has prepared this historic resource evaluation of the Draft Berkeley Downtown Area Plan. The Downtown Area Plan (DAP) is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is a discretionary project that may impact potential historic resources in the plan area. Public Resource Code Section 21084.1 states “a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA defines substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource as the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the resource is materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)). The significance of a historic resource is considered to be materially impaired when a project demolishes, or materially alters in an adverse manner, those characteristics that convey its historic significance and/or account for its inclusion on a historic resource list. ARG’s review is based on the Downtown Area Plan (DAP) as adopted by the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC), a memorandum from the Berkeley Planning & Development on “DAP Height and Bulk Assumptions” dated 8 September 2008, which updated Policy LU‐1.4.1— LU‐1.4.3 and the following maps or graphics: • EIR Building Height Assumptions (DRAFT), no date.
    [Show full text]
  • Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey
    Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey Prepared for: City of Berkeley Department of Planning and Development City of Berkeley 2120 Milvia St. Berkeley, CA 94704 Attn: Sally Zarnowitz, Principal Planner Secretary to the Landmarks Preservation Commission 05.28.2015 FINAL DRAFT (Revised 08.26.2015) ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC PO Box 1332 San José, CA 95109-1332 http://www.archivesandarchitecture.com Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey ACKNOWLEDGMENT The activity which is the subject of this historic context has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental federally‐assisted programs on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service P.O. Box 37127 Washington, DC 20013‐7127 Cover image: USGS Aerial excerpt, Microsoft Corporation ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE 2 Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Baha Newsletter No
    BERKELEY ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE ASSOCIATION THE BAHA NEWSLETTER NO. 147 PRESERVATION AWARDS NUMBER SUMMER 2016 THE BAHA NEWSLETTER NO. 147 SUMMER 2016 Wallen & Jacomena Maybeck House C O N T E N T S Maybeck Studio New Members page 2 Preservation Award Winners page 6 Message from the Office page 3 Member News page 15 Latest Landmark page 3 Membership Application page 15 Downtown Survey page 4 Maybeck Event page 16 WEBSITES YOU SHOULD KNOW • BAHA’s website includes upcoming events, • BAHA maintains a blog where • BAHA is on facebook: face- a list of Berkeley landmarks, illustrated es- notices of immediate interest are book.com/berkeley.architec- says, and more: berkeleyheritage.com posted: baha-news.blogspot.com tural.heritage?ref=hl Cover: Campbell House, welcome new members an award winner. Steven BAHA welcomes the following people who have joined BAHA since the last Newsletter went out. Finacom, 2016. Top left: Mike Parsons, Janet Anderson Mary E. French Julie McCray Sally Smith 1971, BAHA Archives. Daina Dravnieks Apple Jim Furuichi Lawrence Morris Gunther Stein Top right: Dimitri Shipunoff Michael Bank Teri Gerritz Diane Musumeci Soma & John Stickler Collection, BAHA Archives. Nina Barton Laile Giansetto Diana Nehls Charles Stowell Dave Beck Doris Graesser Scott Novins Nina Taylor BOARD OF DIRECTORS Sally Beck Ryan Greene-Roesel Marjorie Nowick Marguerite Tompkins Steven Finacom, Tracey Bornstein Bryan Haggerty Raymond Oliver Margaret Weiss President Linda Boyd Kelly Hammargren David Olson Madison Jane Williams Leila Moncharsh, Randal Brandt Cynthia Hanson David P. Otero Helena Wills Vice-President Tisha Brewster Michael Hibma Kathy & Martin Carol Wolfle Carrie Olson, Tom Brown Maya Hiersoux Otterson CONTRIBUTING Secretary Ann & Patrick Buechner John Hitchen Phyllis Peacock Mary Helen Stephanie Manning, Darien & Zac Cande Nina Lewallen Hufford Anne Perkins Barcellos-Hoff Treasurer Fran Cappelletti John Hunsaker Madeline & Larry Jeanne Harrah-Johnson Christopher Adams Denise Carlson Thom Janzen Petersen Neale McGoldrick Susan Cerny Mark P.
    [Show full text]
  • COB Landmarks Updated April 2015
    City of Berkeley Designated Landmarks Date of Number Street Name1 Name2 Construction Architect Designation Type DEMO Binder Number Note Joseph McVay Oceanview Sisterna 814 Addison Street House Historic District 1888 Roarke 3/1/2004 CBDist 267 Joseph and Wilson Oceanview Sisterna 816 Addison Street McVay House Historic District 1892 Unknown 3/1/2004 CBDist 267 Carrington House, Seth Babson & R. 1029 Addison Street Bartine 1893 Wenk 3/15/1982 SOM 54 1124 Addison Street John Brennan House 1891 Unknown 7/9/2001 LM 237 Cooper Woodworking Walter Crapo / Ben 1250 Addison Street Building 1912 Pearson 4/21/1986 LM 100 Saint Joseph the 1640 Addison Street Worker 0 Shea & Lofquist 3/18/1991 LM partial 160 Sanford G. Jackson / 1900 Addison Street Framat Lodge 1927 Sommarstrom Bros. 4/7/1997 LM 193 The John Boyd 1915 Addison Street House 1893 Unknown 1/5/2012 SOM 310 Golden Sheaf 2071 Addison Street Bakery 1905 Clinton Day 12/19/1977 LM 21 2110 Addison Street Underwood Building 1905 F.E. Armstrong 11/1/1993 SOM 178 Heywood Apartment 2119 Addison Street Bldg 1906 Unknown 4/7/2003 LM 251 Frederick H. Dakin Walter H. Ratcliff & 2750 Adeline Street Warehouse 1906 George T. Plowman 8/9/2004 LM 273 The Hoffman 2988 Adeline Street Building 1905 Henry Ahnefeld 7/6/2006 SOM 286 The William Clephane Corner 3027 Adeline Street Store 1905 C.M. Cook 9/7/2006 LM 290 William Wharff / C. 3228 Adeline Street Carlson's Block 1903 Ekman 7/19/1982 LM 64 3250 Adeline Street India Block 1903 A.W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Baha Newsletter No
    BERKELEY ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE ASSOCIATION THE BAHA NEWSLETTER NO. 146 SUMMER 2015 ANNUAL PRESERVATION AWARDS NUMBER THE BAHA NEWSLETTER NO. 146 SUMMER 2015 Palace of Fine Arts C O N T E N T S Festival Hall Gifts to BAHA page 2 Elmwood House Tour—special to BAHA page 12 Message from the President page 3 Latest Landmark page 14 Preservation Award Winners page 5 Member News page 15 Walter W. Ratcliff, In Memoriam page 11 Fall Lecture Series page 16 Cover: Church of the Good Shepherd. John WEBSITES YOU SHOULD KNOW McBride, 2015 (Photoshop by Kathleen Burch). • BAHA’s website in- • BAHA maintains a • BAHA is on Top left: Bernard Maybeck’s Palace of Fine Arts cludes upcoming events, a blog where notices facebook: face- from a souvenir view book, 1915. list of Berkeley land- of immediate interest book.com/berke- Top right: Buffington family in front of Festival marks, illustrated essays, are posted: baha- ley.architectural. Hall, 1915. Both courtesy Anthony Bruce. and more: news.blogspot.com heritage?ref=hl berkeleyheritage.com BOARD OF DIRECTORS John McBride, President Sally Sachs, Thanks from BAHA Vice-President Candice Basham and Louise Hendry gave BAHA their copies of old house tour Carrie Olson, Corporate Secretary guides. From Richard B. Silver, a former owner of City of Berkeley Landmark, Jane McKinne-Mayer, Fox Court, came a gift of blueprints and original drawings (including a color ren- Recording Secretary dering) from the Fox Brothers office, and one of the original pieces of furniture Steven Finacom, Corresponding Secretary from the complex, a chair with a rawhide seat.
    [Show full text]
  • Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey
    Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey Prepared for: City of Berkeley Department of Planning and Development City of Berkeley 2120 Milvia St. Berkeley, CA 94704 Attn: Sally Zarnowitz, Principal Planner Secretary to the Landmarks Preservation Commission 05.28.2015 FINAL DRAFT ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC PO Box 1332 San José, CA 95109-1332 http://www.archivesandarchitecture.com Shattuck Avenue ACKNOWLEDGMENT The activity which is the subject of this historic context has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental federally‐assisted programs on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service P.O. Box 37127 Washington, DC 20013‐7127 Cover image: USGS Aerial excerpt, Microsoft Corporation
    [Show full text]
  • Clipping File Subject Headings
    Call Number File Name Cabinet 1 Abortion Abortion Drugs AC Transit 1987-88 AC Transit 1989-94 AC Transit 1995-2000 AC Transit 2001-03 AC Transit 2004- Addresses-Literature Related Affirmative Action African American History Month African Americans AIDS and the Arts AIDS -1989 AIDS 1990-99 AIDS 2000- Air Pollution -1999 Air Pollution 2000- Airports Alameda County Supervisors Albany Bulb Alternative Services Coalition Animal Rights 1985-1987 Animal Rights 1988-92 Animal Rights 1993-99 Animal Rights 2000- Animals -1989 Animals 1990-99 Animals 2000- Antennas Anti-Apartheid Movement- U.C.B Anti-Apartheid Movement 1971-89 Anti-Apartheid Movement 1990- Appreciation of Excellence in Youth Program Arab Americans Architecture (General) Architecture-- Apartments Architecture-- Apartments-- Gaia Building Architecture-- BAHA-- (Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association) Architecture-- BAHA Calendars 1 of 2 Architecture-- BAHA Calendars 2 of 2 Architecture-- BAHA Walking Tours Archtiecture-- BAHA Newsletters Architecture-- Banks Architecture-- Berkeley City Club Architecture-- Biographis A-I Architecture-- Biographies J-Z Architecture-- Biographies-- Alexander, Christopher Architecture-- Biographies-- Babson, Seth Architecture-- Biographies-- Coxhead, Ernest Architecture-- Biographies-- Eckbo, Garrett Architecture-- Biographies-- Fernau, Richard Architecture-- Biographies-- Funk, John Architecture-- Biographies-- Greene, Charles & Henry (Greene & Greene) Architecture-- Biographies-- Gutterson, Henry Architecture-- Biographies-- Hall, Liola Architecture--
    [Show full text]
  • U C Berkeley Physical Design Framework
    U C BERKELEY PHYSICAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK NOVEMBER 2009 UC BERKELEY PHYSICAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK . UC BERKELEY PHYSICAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK PREFACE In March 2008, The Regents authorized the ‘pilot phase’ of a major reconfiguration of the capital projects approval process. This pilot phase would entail an initial test of the redesign, in order to examine its logistics and impacts prior to full implementation. In general, the new process would delegate much more authority to the campus for project approval, and would limit project-specific review by The Regents to very large and complex projects. Each campus would prepare a set of ‘framework’ plans that outline its capital investment strategy and physical design approach. Once those plans are approved by The Regents, then as long as a project meets certain thresholds, and conforms to the framework plans, it could be approved by the Chancellor, subject to a 15 day review by OP. One of these thresholds is dollar value: the currently proposed figure is $60 million or less. The framework plans for Berkeley include 3 documents: • The 2020 Long Range Development Plan provides a land use policy framework, within which projects can be prioritized and planned. • The Physical Design Framework describes the current state of the campus physical environment alongside our design objectives, and prescribes principles and guidelines to ensure projects in the capital plan meet the design objectives. • The 2009-2019 Capital Plan outlines both how the capital investment program would meet the campus’ academic and strategic objectives, and how the campus intends to fund the program. The Plan describes present conditions, outlines the campus’ objectives and priorities for the capital program, and details the campus’ financial strategy to meet those objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural and Social.Indd
    City of Berkeley Downtown Berkeley Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey August 2007 CONTEXT: Cultural & Social & SOCIAL CULTURAL Current cultural and social offerings in the City of Berkeley are numerous: from performance at the Berkeley Repertory Theater, to UC Berkeley campus lectures and events, to the unique culture of Berkeley’s street life. Not surprisingly, however, when the town was established in 1878, events and gatherings were more limited. Some of the earliest formal social groups in town were fraternal organizations. The fi rst of these in Berkeley was the Ancient Order of United Workingmen established October 23, 1877.1 Fraternal organizations were social but frequently had civic, educational, and charitable components. They were immensely popular in turn of the century America in general, and Berkeley was no exception. The Berkeley Chapter of the International Order of Odd Fellows (I.O.O.F.) was established in 1878, and a hall was built at the northeast corner of Addison Street and Shattuck Avenue in 1884. In 1894 some of the social venues visible on Sanborn maps were multiuse gathering spaces labeled simply as “halls,” which likely rented out for a variety of activities including performances, concerts, meetings--whatever the community desired. Often these were mixed in with commercial uses. For example, the building at 2168 Shattuck Avenue housed a “hall” on the second fl oor outfi tted with “stage and scenery” ostensibly for dramatic performances. Shops shared the ground fl oor of this building with the public library.2 This privately funded Holmes Public Library had opened on February 10, 1893. The organization was not a free public library, but within a few years, and through strong advocacy by some citizens, the City took over fi nancial responsibility.3 Finally, in 1903 town trustees succeeded in getting a $40,000 Carnegie grant to build a new main library.
    [Show full text]
  • AC Transit East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project Volume 1
    APPENDIX 1: AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) FOR ARCHAEOLOGY 13 Figure 1: APE, Second Addendum Project Location, Fruitvale Traffic Mitigation Area 14 Figure 2: APE, Second Addendum Project Location, Off Street Lots, International Boulevard, Fruitvale District 15 Figure 3: APE, Second Addendum Project Location, Off Street Lots, International Boulevard, East Oakland 16 Figure 4: APE, Second Addendum Project Location, Off Street Lots, Telegraph Avenue, Temescal District 17 APPENDIX 2: AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) FOR HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE 18 Area of Potential Effect (APE) for Historic Architecture is included in Appendix 4: Second Addendum Historic Property Inventory and Evaluation Report (HPIER), Appendix A: Maps APPENDIX 3: ADDENDUM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT (ASR) 19 Draft SECOND ADDENDUM TO POSITIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT FOR THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT’S EAST BAY BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT IN BERKELEY, OAKLAND, AND SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA Prepared by Suzanne Baker, M.A, M.Sc. (ROPA) Archaeological/Historical Consultants 609 Aileen St. Oakland, CA 94609 Prepared for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 111 West St. John St., Suite 440 San Jose, CA 945113 November 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Alameda County (AC) Transit District proposes to upgrade bus service to a high- level express service, known as East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (EBBRT), along an approximately 18-mile arterial corridor through the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro, California (Maps 1, 2a, 2b). In 2005, Archaeological/Historical Consultants (A/HC) of Oakland, California carried out an archaeological survey and prepared an Archaeological Survey Report to encompass proposed alternative routes for the EBBRT Project (Baker 2005). In 2010 A/HC reviewed the project’s Preferred Alignment to determine whether there were significant changes from the alignment alternatives that had been previously surveyed and whether additional field survey might be necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Design Framework
    U C BERKELEY PHYSICAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK NOVEMBER 2009 UC BERKELEY PHYSICAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK . UC BERKELEY PHYSICAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK PREFACE In March 2008, The Regents authorized the ‘pilot phase’ of a major reconfiguration of the capital projects approval process. This pilot phase would entail an initial test of the redesign, in order to examine its logistics and impacts prior to full implementation. In general, the new process would delegate much more authority to the campus for project approval, and would limit project-specific review by The Regents to very large and complex projects. Each campus would prepare a set of ‘framework’ plans that outline its capital investment strategy and physical design approach. Once those plans are approved by The Regents, then as long as a project meets certain thresholds, and conforms to the framework plans, it could be approved by the Chancellor, subject to a 15 day review by OP. One of these thresholds is dollar value: the currently proposed figure is $60 million or less. The framework plans for Berkeley include 3 documents: • The 2020 Long Range Development Plan provides a land use policy framework, within which projects can be prioritized and planned. • The Physical Design Framework describes the current state of the campus physical environment alongside our design objectives, and prescribes principles and guidelines to ensure projects in the capital plan meet the design objectives. • The 2009-2019 Capital Plan outlines both how the capital investment program would meet the campus’ academic and strategic objectives, and how the campus intends to fund the program. The Plan describes present conditions, outlines the campus’ objectives and priorities for the capital program, and details the campus’ financial strategy to meet those objectives.
    [Show full text]