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 to Statewide Energy Use ...... 194 Table 36 Project Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption ...... 194 Table 37 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics ...... 198 Table 38 Person-Trip Generation Estimates by Mode - Comparison ...... 203 Table 39 Impact Comparison of Alternatives ...... 206

ii Table of Contents

Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ...... 24 Figure 2 Project Location Map ...... 25 Figure 3 Site Photographs ...... 26 Figure 4 Surrounding Area Photographs...... 27 Figure 5 Site and Surrounding Downtown Area Plan Land Use Classifications...... 30 Figure 6 Proposed Second Basement Level Floor Plan ...... 35 Figure 7 Proposed First Basement Level Floor Plan ...... 36 Figure 8 Proposed Level 1 Floor Plan ...... 37 Figure 9 Proposed Level 2 Floor Plan ...... 38 Figure 10 Proposed Levels 3-6 Floor Plan ...... 39 Figure 11 Proposed Level 7 Floor Plan ...... 40 Figure 12 Proposed Level 8 Floor Plan ...... 41 Figure 13 Proposed Levels 9-12 Floor Plan ...... 42 Figure 14 Proposed Level 13 Floor Plan ...... 43 Figure 15 Proposed Levels 14-18 Floor Plan ...... 44 Figure 16 Proposed Roof Plan ...... 45 Figure 17 Proposed South (Allston Way) Elevation ...... 46 Figure 18 Proposed North Elevation ...... 47 Figure 19 Proposed East-West Elevations ...... 48 Figure 20 Proposed Project Massing Context ...... 49 Figure 21 Historic Site Photograph ...... 81 Figure 22 Historic UC Berkeley Photograph ...... 90 Figure 23 Map of Viewshed Locations ...... 99 Figure 24 Photosimulations: Base of Campanile ...... 100 Figure 25 Photosimulations: Base of Campanile ...... 101 Figure 26 Photosimulations: Base of Campanile ...... 102 Figure 27 Photosimulations: Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road ...... 103 Figure 28 Photosimulations: Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road ...... 104 Figure 29 Photosimulations: Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road ...... 105 Figure 30 Photosimulations: Campanile Way by Bancroft Library ...... 106 Figure 31 Photosimulations: Campanile Way by Doe Memorial Library ...... 107 Figure 32 Photosimulations: Base of Campanile ...... 111 Figure 33 Noise Measurement Locations ...... 124 Appendices1 Appendix A Infill Environmental Checklist, Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (NOP), and Responses to the NOP Appendix B Scoping Meeting Transcript Appendix C Historic Resources Technical Report Appendix D Noise Results

1 Appendices B through D are provided on a Compact Disc enclosed with the print version of this EIR. Printed copies of Appendices B through D are available to view at the City of Berkeley Permit Service Center at 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor, during regular business hours.

Environmental Impact Report iii

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

This document is an Infill Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed Use Project. This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, alternatives to the proposed project that are analyzed in this EIR, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project.

Project Synopsis

Lead Agency and Contact Person City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, California 94704 Leslie Mendez, Senior Planner, (510) 981-7426

Project Sponsor Don Peterson PR III Shattuck LLC 2190 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, California 94704

Project Location The project site, assessor’s parcel number (APN) 57-2026-004-05, is located at 2190 Shattuck Avenue, on the northwest corner of Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, in the Downtown area of the city of Berkeley. The site has frontage on Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, and is adjacent to the southern end of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Plaza associated with the Downtown Berkeley BART Station.

Project Overview The project is a proposed 211,590 square-foot residential and commercial mixed-use development in Downtown Berkeley. The project would involve demolition of an existing two-story commercial building that covers the entire project site and construction of an 18- story building with retail commercial ground-floor uses, residential upper-floor uses, and a two-level subterranean parking garage. The completed project would include 274 residential units and 10,000 square feet of commercial space. The commercial storefronts would front on the Shattuck Avenue BART Plaza and wrap around to Allston Way on the south. A 677 square-foot community art space next to the residential lobby would be available for community events. The proposed building would have components of various heights, with the highest portion reaching 180 feet, excluding rooftop architectural projections (a parapet and elevator enclosures) that would extend up to approximately 190 feet. The project would maintain a continuous street wall at the edge of the abutting streets up to where the building would step

Environmental Impact Report 1 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project back toward the interior of the site. At a height of approximately 72 feet (seven stories) above street level, the building would step back 15 feet from Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way. Above the 12th floor, the building would step back an additional 65 feet from Shattuck Avenue. Pedestrian access would be available from fronting sidewalks on Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way. The retail entry would be on Shattuck Avenue, and the residential entrance would be on Allston Way, east of the proposed garage driveway. Vehicular access to the proposed two-level subterranean garage would be provided via a two-way driveway ramp from Allston Way. Of the 103 proposed automobile parking spaces in the garage, 92 would be on mechanical lifts. In addition, 100 secure bicycle parking spaces and a bicycle repair shop would be provided indoors at the northwest end of the first floor, accessible from a residential entrance and walkway at the far western side of the building.

Site Preparation and Construction The existing two-story, 38,700 square-foot building with retail commercial and office space at 2190 Shattuck Avenue would be demolished. Construction of the proposed project, including demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving, would take place over an estimated 27 months. Approximately 25,000 cubic yards of cut would be required during excavation for the proposed building’s foundation and subterranean parking garage. The proposed building would be founded on a concrete mat foundation (a type of continuous thick-slab foundation) varying from approximately four to eight feet in thickness. Within two feet of the eastern property line, the building’s columns would be supported by piles. Soldier piles would be installed with a track-mounted drilling rig; no impact or vibratory pile drivers would be used.

Requested Entitlements The proposed project is subject to approval by the City of Berkeley’s Zoning Adjustments Board. The project would require the following discretionary entitlements from the City of Berkeley: . Use Permit to demolish a non-residential building . Use Permit for a Mixed Use Development in the C-DMU Zoning District . Use Permit to construct two-level parking garage . Use Permit to construct more than 10,000 square feet of floor area . Use Permit to exceed a building height of 75 feet . Use Permit for portion of building exceeding 120 feet in height to be greater than 120 feet in width when measured at widest point on the diagonal in plan view . Administrative Use Permit to allow architectural projections to exceed maximum building height

Project Objectives

The applicant’s objectives for the project are as follows: 1. Implement the Downtown Area Plan and Street & Open Space Improvement Plan by taking advantage of the full development potential under Zoning Ordinance standards and in turn, generating the revenue necessary to support the amenities

2 Executive Summary

and community benefits envisioned in the Downtown Area Plan, and maintaining the financial feasibility of the Project. 2. Generate much-needed, highly livable, transit-oriented, and sustainable market rate housing; and contribute substantial affordable housing (and/or fees to support development of such housing) as required by Berkeley Municipal Code Section 22.20.065. 3. Assist the State, region and the City to achieve established housing production goals. 4. Design a project that is feasible and contributes positively to the economic, social, and environmental goals of the City. 5. Establish a thriving, livable and diverse residential neighborhood that maximizes transit-oriented density and establish an environmentally sustainable community with 400-450 new residents. 6. Stimulate and activate the pedestrian environment along Allston Way by replacing the existing structure, with vibrant, walkable retail and pedestrian amenities and offering diverse, walk-to destinations. 7. Upgrade and revitalize an important urban block in Downtown Berkeley into a walkable, retail-centered, transit-friendly, residential block with active, safe and visually engaging pedestrian amenities consistent with the Downtown Area Plan and the Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan, while respecting key historic resources on adjacent blocks. 8. Develop a superior building, integrating environmentally sustainable development practices in design, development, and construction. 9. Utilize ecologically beneficial landscaping techniques that complement and enhance the local environment and reinforce the City’s commitment to environmental sustainability, promote watershed health and create safe, comfortable, and inviting open spaces. 10. Actively encourage alternative modes of transportation by foot, by bicycle and via transit, for residents, employees, and retail customers by providing residents and employees with a range of Transportation Demand Management measures that are made possible by the income generated by the project’s size and scale, and prioritizing the safety, attractiveness and convenience of the pedestrian experience. 11. Generate significant new revenue streams for the City of Berkeley through increased property taxes and property-based revenues, economically sensitive revenues such as sales taxes and business license taxes, jobs creation, gross receipts taxes, and a new residential population that supports a successful mix of retail businesses, institutions and other attractions in Downtown Berkeley.

Alternatives The following alternatives are evaluated Section 6, Project Alternatives: . Alternative 1: No Project (no change to existing conditions). This alternative assumes that the proposed project is not implemented and the existing two-story commercial building is left intact. This alternative assumes that the building occupancy would remain as is, including the Walgreens drug store and pharmacy on the ground floor and office uses on the second floor, while the basement would remain vacant.

Environmental Impact Report 3 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

. Alternative 2: Reduced Parking. This alternative assumes that the proposed building would provide fewer off-street parking spaces for vehicles than would the proposed project but the same intensity of residential and commercial development (274 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail commercial space). While the proposed project would include a two-level subterranean parking garage, this alternative would provide either a one- or two-level garage to accommodate 58 parking spaces and building support systems, as compared to 103 parking spaces under the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 6, the No Project Alternative would be the overall environmentally superior alternative since it would avoid all project impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not achieve the basic project objectives as stated in Section 2, Project Description. Among the development options, Alternative 2 (Reduced Parking) would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, as it would reduce vehicle trips such that air quality, traffic noise, and circulation impacts would be reduced. However, the Reduced Parking Alternative would not change any impact conclusions compared to the proposed project. This alternative would still require mitigation for air pollutant emissions during construction, design compatibility with historic buildings, structural stability of the Strawberry Creek culvert and BART substructure, construction noise, construction-related impacts to circulation, pedestrian safety, and loading conflicts.

Areas of Known Controversy The City identified the following major areas of known controversy for the proposed project through the EIR scoping process: . Potential obstruction of westward views from Campanile Way on the UC Berkeley Campus . Cultural resources impacts including impacts to the Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District and indirect impacts to nearby historic resources including the Shattuck Hotel . Traffic congestion and traffic safety impacts during project construction and operation . Cumulative impacts during construction and operation . Construction impacts (air quality, noise and traffic) to nearby institutional land uses such as Berkeley High School, Berkeley City College and the Downtown Berkeley YMCA

Table 1 in Section 1, Introduction, summarizes the main public comments received during the scoping period.

Issues to be Resolved Issues to be resolved include the City’s decision makers’ choice among the alternatives, significance determination for certain impact areas identified in the Infill Environmental Checklist, and whether or how to mitigate the identified significant impacts.

4 Executive Summary

Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR As discussed in Section 1, Introduction, the City conducted a review of the project through an Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A to this EIR) to identify potentially significant environmental issues pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3. The Infill Environmental Checklist determined that the project would have potentially significant impacts related to air quality, noise and vibration, cultural resources, transportation/traffic and geology and soils; these topics are studied in detail in the EIR. Impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, population/housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities/service systems are discussed in the Infill Environmental Checklist only, and are not studied in detail in the EIR.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 1 summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed project, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required). Impacts are categorized as follows: . Significant and Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. . Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. . Less than Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. . No Impact: The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

It should be noted that additional mitigation measures from the Downtown Area Plan EIR may also apply to the proposed project; these are not listed here but will be listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for consideration at the time the Final EIR is considered for certification.

Environmental Impact Report 5 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Table 1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Residual Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Impact Air Quality Impact AIR-1: Project construction Although construction emissions would be below Less than would generate increases in localized BAAQMD project-level thresholds, Mitigation significant after air pollutant emissions. While these Measure AIR-3 from the DAP EIR would be mitigation emissions may result in temporary required to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 construction adverse impacts to local air quality, emissions that could pose a health and nuisance they would not exceed BAAQMD impact to nearby sensitive land uses. thresholds. Nevertheless, the project would be required to comply with BAAQMD regulations and Mitigation Measure AIR-3 from the DAP EIR to minimize emissions that could pose a health and nuisance impact to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant with mitigation. Impact AIR-2: Air pollutant emissions None required Less than generated from operation of the project significant would not exceed BAAQMD without operational significance thresholds. mitigation Therefore, long-term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant. Impact AIR-3: The project would not None required Less than expose sensitive receptors to significant substantial pollutant concentrations. without Based on a conservative screening mitigation analysis following BAAQMD methodology, on-site sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial levels of TACs that would significantly impact human health. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Impact AIR-4: The project would None required Less than contribute to population growth but significant would be consistent with the growth without assumptions in the BAAQMD’s current mitigation 2017 Clean Air Plan. This impact would be less than significant. Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: Although the proposed CR-1a. Slanted Wall Modifications. The project Less than demolition of the existing commercial applicant shall modify the proposed design of the significant after building on-site would not directly slanted walls composed of slotted aluminum mitigation affect an eligible historical resource, panels at stories two through six along Shattuck the proposed building design would Avenue and Allston Way to make them more adversely affect the setting of nearby compatible with the Shattuck Hotel and other historical resources, including the contributors to the proposed Shattuck Avenue adjacent Shattuck Hotel and the Downtown Historic District. Specifically, these greater proposed Shattuck Avenue slanted walls shall be replaced with a rectilinear Downtown Historic District. Impacts on wall system, i.e., one with all wall surfaces either the integrity of historical resources parallel or perpendicular to the abutting property would be less than significant with line. incorporation of mitigation to enhance CR-1b. Wall Rhythm Modifications. The

6 Executive Summary

Residual Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Impact the compatibility of the proposed proportion and pattern of void to wall in the building’s design with surrounding proposed wall treatments of the project shall be historical resources. modified to more closely match that exhibited in the Shattuck Hotel. Potential ways to achieve this include replacing the window wall systems with punched curtain wall systems or breaking up the window wall systems with windowless bays. Impact CR-2: The proposed None required Less than demolition of the existing building on- significant site and construction of an 18-story without mixed-use building with two levels of mitigation underground parking would produce ground vibration in the vicinity of existing historical resources. However, the levels of vibration that would be generated by project construction activities would not exceed thresholds for physical damage to historic structures. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Impact CR-3: The proposed 18-story None required Less than building would partially obstruct views significant of the San Francisco Bay and the without Golden Gate Bridge from the base of mitigation the Campanile and Campanile Way. While the westerly views from Campanile Way are not historical resources in their own right, they are a character-defining feature of a landscape element (Campanile Way) that UC Berkeley has identified as a contributor to a cultural landscape (the Classical Core of campus). The obstruction of views from the base of the Campanile and Campanile Way would not result in a substantial adverse change to the cultural landscape of the Classical Core, and impacts would be less than significant. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1: Construction of the GEO-1 Temporary Shoring and Tieback Less than project would occur within 25 feet of Design Review. Prior to the issuance of a significant after the centerline of the Strawberry Creek grading permit, the project applicant shall submit mitigation culvert. The presence of the culvert in to the City of Berkeley Department of Planning & proximity to the proposed building’s Development – Building and Safety Division for foundations could potentially result in review and approval the results of a site-specific instability of the proposed building’s geotechnical investigation as well as final foundations. Required compliance with engineering and design plans for excavation, Berkeley Municipal Code and temporary shoring, tiebacks, and tieback California Building Code standards anchors. The final engineering and design plans would reduce the potential for for the project shall demonstrate the precise excavation, shoring and foundations to location of the Strawberry Creek culvert, the cause instability. However, improper location of all tiebacks and tieback anchors, the installation of temporary shoring and shoring design pressures, the bearing strength of tiebacks could result in damage to the the soil between the project and the culvert, and culvert during project construction. the construction sequencing. Excavation and temporary shoring shall be designed to limit horizontal and vertical ground deformations such

Environmental Impact Report 7 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Residual Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Impact that the stability of the adjacent culvert would not be affected. The installation of tiebacks and tieback anchors shall be designed to prevent damage to the adjacent culvert. Impact GEO-2: Construction of the GEO-2 BART Zone of Influence Design Less than project would occur within the zone of Review. Prior to the issuance of a grading significant after influence of the adjacent BART station permit, the project applicant shall submit to the mitigation and tunnels. Improper construction City of Berkeley Department of Planning & within this zone could result in damage Development – Building and Safety Division for to, or destabilization of, the proposed review and approval the results of a site-specific project and the BART subway tunnel geotechnical investigation as well as final and station. Mitigation would be engineering and design plans for the building, required to ensure that the including all subsurface and above-ground construction design meets all elements of the project. The final engineering applicable BART standards. With and design plans for the project shall implementation of mitigation, the demonstrate adherence to BART’s General project would have a less than Guidelines for Design and Construction Over or significant impact related to the Adjacent to BART’s Subway Structures. structural integrity of BART Applicable elements of the General Guidelines substructures. may include, but are not limited to, the following: . Minimum clearance of 7’6” between new construction and BART substructures . Shoring for excavations in the Zone of Influence . Monitoring of shoring to ensure that it maintains at-rest soil condition . Monitoring of dewatering and recharging if the existing groundwater level is expected to drop by more than two feet . Predrilling of piles to a minimum of 10 feet below the Line of Influence, which is a line from the critical point of a BART substructure at a slope of 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical towards ground level Noise and Vibration Impact N-1: Project construction The project developer would be required to Significant and would temporarily generate high noise implement a project-specific noise reduction unavoidable levels on and near the project site. program as described in Mitigation Measure NOI- Construction noise levels would 5 of the DAP EIR, which requires appropriate intermittently exceed City standards for time limits for construction (7:00 A.M. to 7:00 construction noise in commercial P.M. on weekdays and between the hours of zones, particularly in the first months 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on weekends or of construction during excavation and holidays), the use of available control technology construction of the foundation system. such as equipment mufflers and temporary noise Therefore, construction noise impacts barriers, locating stationary noise-generating would be significant and unavoidable. equipment as far as possible from adjoining sensitive receptors, notification of neighbors, and other measures. Impact N-2: Project construction None required Less than would temporarily generate high significant vibration levels on and adjacent to the without project site. Because construction mitigation would occur inside the hours allowed in the Berkeley Municipal Code, it would not generate vibration when people normally sleep. Construction vibration would not exceed levels that

8 Executive Summary

Residual Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Impact may cause structural damage to historic buildings. While vibration in excess of FTA thresholds may temporarily disturb daytime educational activities at Berkeley City College the use of administrative controls including notification of neighbors and appropriate scheduling of vibrating-generating activities would minimize exposure to perceptible vibration. The project would have a less than significant vibration impact. Impact N-3: On-site activities during None required Less than operation of the project would significant generate noise that may periodically without be audible to noise-sensitive receptors mitigation near the project site. On-site noise sources would include stationary equipment, such as rooftop ventilation and heating systems, and delivery and trash hauling trucks. However, on-site operational noise would not exceed ambient noise levels at nearby noise- sensitive receptors. Therefore, on-site operational noise impacts would be less than significant. Impact N-4: Vehicle trips associated None required Less than with operation of the project would significant increase traffic volumes on Downtown without Area roadways, resulting in greater mitigation traffic noise audible to existing noise- sensitive uses. However, the increase of vehicle trips from the project would be incremental and would not result in a substantial traffic noise increase. Therefore, traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Impact N-5: New residential units on Because the ambient noise environment exceeds Less than the project site would be subject to the City’s 70 dBA Ldn exterior noise standard, significant after noise levels in excess of the City of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 in the DAP EIR mitigation Berkeley noise compatibility requires the provision of forced-air mechanical guidelines. However, sound ventilation so that windows could be kept closed attenuation techniques would reduce at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. In ambient noise in the residential units to addition, Mitigation Measure N-5 would below the City’s standard of 45 dBA implement the programmatic performance Ldn, ensuring that this impact would standards in the DAP EIR Mitigation Measure be less than significant with mitigation. NOI-1 for reducing noise transmission by exterior building materials. N-5 Sound Insulation. The applicant shall install exterior building materials with sufficient Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings to reduce interior noise levels in habitable rooms to below 45 dBA Ldn, as required by California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Section 1207.4. All residential windows, exterior doors, and exterior wall assemblies shall meet the STC 30 rating to ensure the adequate attenuation of noise at a range of frequencies.

Environmental Impact Report 9 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Residual Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Impact Transportation/Traffic Impact T-1: With the addition of None required Less than vehicle trips from the project, all significant intersections near the project site without would continue to operate at an mitigation acceptable level of service of LOS D or better. The project would have a less than significant impact on the vehicular circulation system under the Baseline plus Project traffic scenario. Impact T-2: The project would None required Less than generate vehicle trips in an area of significant Berkeley with low existing vehicle without miles traveled relative to surrounding mitigation areas in Alameda County, and public transit would accommodate a substantial portion of the project’s travel demand. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to vehicle miles traveled. Impact T-3: Construction of the T‐3 Development and Implementation of a Less than project, based on its expected duration Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior significant after and intensity, would result in a to the issuance of demolition permits, a mitigation temporary reduction in roadway construction traffic management plan shall be capacity, closure of portions of Allston prepared and implemented during construction Way, and relocation of AC Transit bus and shall include, but not be limited to, the stops. These physical changes would following strategies to the satisfaction of the have temporary adverse effects on City’s Zoning Officer and Public Works staff: vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit 1) Temporary Traffic Control Strategies circulation. The project would have a . Coordinate with the City of Berkeley Public less than significant impact with Works Department and construction mitigation during construction. manager(s)/contractor(s) for nearby developments, and with AC Transit, Bear Transit, and Alta Bates Shuttle, as applicable, to develop construction phasing and operations and detour plans that would result in the least amount of disruption that is feasible to transit operations, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and vehicular traffic. . Establish construction phasing/staging schedule and sequence that minimize impacts of a work zone on traffic by using operationally sensitive phasing and staging throughout the life of the project. . Coordinate and schedule utilities work to minimize potential work disruptions or interruptions and reduce overall construction duration. . Identify optimal delivery and haul routes to and from the site to minimize impacts to traffic, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists. . Conduct monitoring for pavement damage and timing/coordination for completing repairs along construction truck routes . Identify arrival/departure times for trucks and construction workers to avoid peak periods

10 Executive Summary

Residual Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Impact of adjacent street traffic and minimize traffic affects . Specify timing, signage, location, and duration of necessary partial/complete sidewalk closures and identification of detour routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles, as needed . Preserve safe and convenient passage for pedestrians and bicyclists around construction areas. Provide alternate facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians (including those with disabilities) in places where the work zone impacts accessibility . Provide for relocation of bus stops and ensure adequate wayfinding and signage to notify transit users . Establish criteria for use of flaggers and other temporary traffic controls . Preserve emergency vehicle access . As necessary, obtain a transportation permit from Caltrans for transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways 2) Transportation Operations and Transportation Demand Management Measures . Encourage construction workers to use transit, carpool and other sustainable transportation modes when commuting to and from the site. . Specify locations of construction worker employee parking. 3) Public Information Strategies . Provide advance notification to affected property owners, businesses, residents, etc. of possible driveway blockages or other access obstructions and implement alternate access and parking provisions where necessary. . Implement public awareness strategies to educate and reach out to the public, businesses, and the community concerning the project and work zone (e.g., brochures and mailers, press releases/media alerts). . Provide a point of contact for residents, employees, property owners, and visitors to obtain construction information, and provide comments and questions. . Provide current and/or real‐time information to road users regarding the project work zone (e.g., changeable message sign to notify road users of lane and road closures and work activities, temporary conventional signs to guide motorists through the work zone).

Environmental Impact Report 11 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Residual Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Impact Impact T-4: The proposed project T‐4 Driveway Safety Measures. Prior to Less than driveway would introduce potential obtaining a certificate of occupancy, the applicant significant after conflicts between vehicles accessing shall implement the following traffic safety mitigation the site and pedestrians using the measures to the satisfaction of the City’s Zoning north-side sidewalk of Allston Way. Officer and Public Works staff: Use of the proposed driveway within . Per City of Berkeley guidelines, maintain a approximately 25 feet of a bus layover minimum five foot by five foot sight distance zone on Allston Way also could triangle at the driveway entrance/exit; introduce conflicts between vehicles . Install “STOP” pavement markings and accessing the site and buses. These signage for exiting drivers to look both ways conflicts would cause a potentially at the exit, prior to crossing the sidewalk; significant impact without adequate . sight distance provided at the project Install convex mirrors at the project driveway driveway and appropriate technology to improve the visibility of exiting vehicles to minimize conflicts associated with from the sidewalk; the driveway. The project would result . Provide visual and/or audio warning devices in a less than significant impact with that alert pedestrians when vehicles are mitigation incorporated. exiting the driveway; and . Provide visual warning devices that alert drivers when pedestrians are present on the sidewalk. Impact T-5: Commercial and T-5 Loading Monitoring and Management Less than passenger loading activity associated Plan. Prior to obtaining a certificate of significant after with the project would introduce occupancy, a qualified transportation consultant mitigation potential conflicts with other (as determined by the City’s Traffic Engineer) automobiles, buses, bicyclists, and shall prepare a loading monitoring plan to pedestrians. If demand exceeds observe traffic conflicts associated with the available space at the proposed project’s commercial and passenger loading commercial loading zone on the north activities, and submit it for approval by the Traffic side of Allston Way or at the existing Engineer. The plan shall include a schedule for passenger loading zone on the south conducting observations of loading activities on side of the street, spillover loading Allston Way between Shattuck Avenue and activity could lead to illegal parking in Harold Way during the first six months after red curb zones or double-parking. project occupancy, and a schedule for reporting Large trucks parked in the proposed these observations to the Traffic Engineer. loading zone also could temporarily The transportation consultant shall the implement block access to and from the proposed the approved monitoring plan, and Transportation garage. The project would have a less Division staff will review the consultant’s than significant impact with mitigation observations and determine if additional loading incorporated to minimize traffic management strategies are required, including, conflicts associated with loading but not limited to, limiting commercial deliveries activity. for the on-site retail use to certain times of day. The manager and/or owner of the proposed building shall implement the required management strategies throughout operation of the project. Impact T-6: Garbage, recycling, and None required Less than green waste generated by the project significant would be placed curbside on Allston without Way for periodic collection. Zero mitigation Waste trucks would have direct access to the curbside collection area. While storage bins would present a minor and temporary obstacle for pedestrians, they would not substantially affect pedestrian circulation on Allston Way. Therefore, the project would have a less than

12 Executive Summary

Residual Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Impact significant impact from circulation conflicts related to garbage, recycling, and green waste collection. Impact T-7: All streets and Mitigation Measure T-3 (see above). Less than intersections on the route from the significant after nearest fire stations to the project site mitigation are sufficiently wide enough to provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the site. Operation of the project would not substantially increase delays on emergency access routes. However, project construction would temporarily impede emergency access to the project site during construction. The project would have a less than significant impact related to emergency access with mitigation incorporated during construction. Impact T-8: The project would not Mitigation Measures T-3, T-4, T-5 (see above). Less than generate a substantial increase in significant after transit ridership that results in result in mitigation overcrowding on local or regional transit systems. However, the temporary closure of an AC Transit bus stop and layover zone would impede transit access during construction. Traffic conflicts with vehicles entering and leaving the proposed driveway and with loading activity also could delay buses on Allston Way. The project would have a less than significant impact on the performance of local and regional transit operations with mitigation incorporated to preserve local bus access during construction and to minimize traffic and loading conflicts with buses during operation. Impact T-9: The project would not None required Less than involve features that would result in significant permanent or substantial operational without impacts to alternative modes of mitigation transportation. However, construction of the project would temporarily impact pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on local pedestrian and bicycle circulation.

Environmental Impact Report 13 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Residual Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Impact Tribal Cultural Resources (from Infill Environmental Checklist) Impact TCR-1: Proposed excavation TCR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Less than of the project site could potentially Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural significant after result in adverse effects on resources of Native American origin are identified mitigation. unanticipated tribal cultural resources. during construction, the City shall consult with a Impacts from the unanticipated qualified archaeologist and begin or continue discovery of tribal cultural resources Native American consultation procedures. If the during construction would be less than City determines that the resource is a tribal significant with mitigation incorporated. cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. If the resource cannot be avoided, additional measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource and to address tribal concerns may be required.

14 Introduction

1 Introduction

This document is an Infill Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project (the “project”). The project site is located on the northwest corner of Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, in the Downtown area of the City of Berkeley. It is regionally accessible via Interstate 80 and locally accessible via Shattuck Avenue, the Downtown Berkeley Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, and several AC Transit bus lines. The proposed project would involve demolition of an existing two-story commercial building and construction of an 18-story mixed-use building with 211,590 square feet, including retail commercial ground-floor uses, residential upper-floor uses, and a two- level subterranean parking garage. The project is described in greater detail in Section 2.0, Project Description. This section discusses: (1) The environmental impact report background; (2) The legal basis for preparing an EIR; (3) The scope and content of the EIR; (4) Lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; and (5) The environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and distributed for agency and public review for a 30-day review period that began on January 5, 2017. The NOP and responses are presented in Appendix A to the EIR, along with the Infill Environmental Checklist that was prepared for the project pursuant to Section 15183.3 and Appendix N of the CEQA Guidelines. The City received two comment letters responding to the NOP. The letters are listed and their content summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Notice of Preparation Comments and Environmental Impact Report Response Commenter Comment/Request Where Addressed in EIR East Bay Municipal Discuss EBMUD’s Regional Private This topic is addressed in Appendix A, Infill Utility District Sewer Lateral Ordinance. Require Environmental Checklist. It has been (EBMUD) mitigation measures to ensure that determined that impacts related to wastewater project reduces infiltration and inflow facilities would be less than significant, given to wastewater system. required compliance with this EBMUD ordinance and water conservation as part of achieving a LEED Gold (or equivalent) rating. Discuss compliance with Section 31 Appendix A, Infill Environmental Checklist of EBMUD’s Water Service Regulations.

Environmental Impact Report 15 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Commenter Comment/Request Where Addressed in EIR Berkeley Discuss impact on view corridor from EIR Section 4.2, Cultural Resources Architectural UC Berkeley’s Campanile Way. Heritage Provide photosimulations of The Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A) Association (BAHA) nighttime views from Campanile Way addresses daytime and nighttime view impacts from Campanile Way. Photosimulations of daytime views are sufficient to evaluate aesthetic or historic impacts. Analyze a low-rise alternative to EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, considers a avoid view impacts. shorter building on the project site as a potential alternative. Describe the proposed design’s EIR Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, analyzes potential incompatibility with historic the building’s compatibility with nearby historic Downtown buildings and the buildings, the Shattuck Avenue Downtown Downtown Berkeley Design Historic District, and the Downtown Berkeley Guidelines. Design Guidelines.

The City held a public meeting before the Zoning Adjustments Board to discuss the project on January 26, 2017 (see Appendix B for transcript). The comments from the Board that were relevant to the CEQA analysis and process are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Comments from Zoning Adjustments Board Comment/Request Where Addressed in EIR Do not study impacts in checklist All potential impacts are addressed in the Infill Environmental Checklist that is an appendix to EIR. (Appendix A). The screening of impacts by use of a checklist is consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant impacts are evaluated in detail in the EIR. Address impacts to Berkeley These impacts are addressed in EIR Sections 4.1, Air Quality; Section High School, Berkeley City 4.4, Noise and Vibration; and Section 4.5, Transportation/Traffic. Potential College, and the YMCA. impacts to these land uses include emissions of air pollutants during construction and operation of the project, noise generated by the project, and pedestrian safety on Allston Way. Consider obstruction of view from View obstruction is analyzed in EIR Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, with Campanile Way respect to impacts on a cultural landscape at UC Berkeley, and in the Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A) with respect to scenic vistas. Provide a more robust graphic EIR Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, presents photosimulations from depiction of view impacts. eight perspectives along Campanile Way. The Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A) also presents these photosimulations in its analysis of impacts to scenic vistas. Consider potential impacts to the EIR Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, discusses these impacts, as does Shattuck Avenue Downtown the Historic Resources Technical Report (Appendix C) prepared for the Historic District. project. Show the applicant’s renderings EIR Section 2.0, Project Description, presents conceptual elevations and and a massing diagram. the project’s massing in the context of the site vicinity. EIR Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, shows photosimulations based on architectural projections provided by the applicant. Evaluate an alternative to EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, considers a potential alternative that would preserve scenic views. reduce view obstruction from Campanile Way by lowering the proposed building’s height. Study impacts on cumulative EIR Section 4.5, Transportation/Traffic, discusses cumulative impacts on development in Downtown Area traffic congestion and circulation. on circulation.

16 Introduction

Comment/Request Where Addressed in EIR Study the proposed driveway’s EIR Section 4.5, Transportation/Traffic, evaluates the driveway’s impact impact on traffic safety, given on pedestrian safety. proximity to the YMCA, schools, and other institutional uses. Consider an alternative or EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, evaluates an alternative that would provide mitigation measures involving fewer parking spaces but more car-share spaces. reduced parking. Address hydrologic impacts EIR Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, addresses soil stability hazards and related to the underground drainage impacts on the Strawberry Creek culvert. In addition, the Infill Strawberry Creek Environmental Checklist (Appendix A) evaluates water quality impacts from runoff.

1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority

The project requires the discretionary approval of the City of Berkeley’s Zoning Adjustments Board. Therefore, it is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with Section 15121 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that: ...will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.

This EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR (although limited in scope pursuant to CEQA, as discussed further below) pursuant to Section 15161 and as an Infill EIR pursuant to Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines in Section 15161: This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation.

This limited scope EIR includes the Infill Checklist; the analysis of the environmental impacts; and mitigation measures and project alternatives addressing the impacts. The nature of an Infill EIR is discussed below. This EIR is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Berkeley decision-makers. The process will culminate with a Zoning Adjustments Board hearing to consider certification of a Final EIR and approval of the project.

1.3 Scope and Content

In 2014 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3, Infill Streamlining, was amended to implement SB 226. The purpose of Section 15183.3 is to streamline the environmental review process for eligible infill projects that promote a specific set of environmental policy objectives by limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of infill development have been addressed in a planning level decision or by uniformly applicable development policies. Section 15183.3 provides flexibility in project design by basing eligibility on environmental performance rather than prescribing specific project characteristics. Section

Environmental Impact Report 17 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

15183 contains performance standards that can be used to determine an infill project’s eligibility for streamlined review. Pursuant to Section 15183.3(b), to be eligible for streamlined review, an infill project must: (1) Be located in an urban area on a site that either has been previously developed or that adjoins existing qualified urban uses on at least seventy-five percent of the site's perimeter. For the purpose of this subdivision "adjoin" means the infill project is immediately adjacent to qualified urban uses, or is only separated from such uses by an improved public right-of-way; (2) Satisfy the performance standards provided in Appendix M; and (3) Be consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy...

In addition, Section 21099 of CEQA (California Public Resources Code 21000–21177) states that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area are not to be considered significant environmental impacts. As discussed in the Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A to this EIR), the proposed project qualifies as an infill project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3. It is located in an urban area on a site that has been previously developed. In order to be eligible for streamlined review under Section 15183.3, a project must meet performance standards contained in Appendix M of the CEQA Guidelines. Examples of performance standards include remediation onsite, protection of public health, and proximity to an existing major transit stop/transit corridor. The information demonstrating that the infill project satisfies the Appendix M performance standards is provided in the Infill Environmental Checklist in a section titled “Satisfaction of Appendix M Performance Standards.” The project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity and applicable policies specified for the project area in the City’s Downtown Area Plan (DAP) EIR. As documented in the Infill Environmental Checklist, potential development on the project site was within the DAP vision and is included in all aspects of the DAP EIR. For eligible infill projects, CEQA does not apply to the effects of the project in the following ways, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3(c): . If a significant environmental effect was analyzed in a prior EIR for a planning level decision, then, with some exceptions, that effect need not be analyzed again for an individual infill project even when that effect was not reduced to a less than significant level in the prior EIR. . An effect need not be analyzed, even if it was not analyzed in a prior EIR or is more significant than previously analyzed, if the lead agency makes a finding that uniformly applicable development policies or standards, adopted by the lead agency or a city or county, apply to the infill project and would substantially mitigate that effect.

If the infill project would result in new project-specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects are subject to CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15183.3(d)(2)(C). With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, the lead agency must prepare an infill EIR if the written checklist shows that the effects of the infill project would be potentially

18 Introduction significant. An Infill EIR must analyze only those significant effects that uniformly applicable development policies or standards do not substantially mitigate, and that are either new specific effects or are more significant than the prior EIR analyzed. An infill EIR need not analyze growth-inducing impacts. This EIR addresses the issues determined to be potentially significant by the City of Berkeley in the context of the streamlining provisions discussed above. To identify potentially significant environmental issues, the City conducted a review of the project through an Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A to this EIR), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3. The Infill Environmental Checklist determined that the project would have potentially significant impacts related to the following environmental issues: . Air Quality . Noise and Vibration . Cultural Resources . Transportation/Traffic . Geology and Soils

Therefore, this Infill EIR addresses potentially significant impacts in these issue areas, including the project’s site-specific and cumulative effects. It recommends feasible mitigation measures, where possible, that would eliminate or reduce adverse environmental effects. The EIR references pertinent City policies and guidelines, certified EIRs and adopted CEQA documents, and background documents prepared or relied upon by the City in preparing this CEQA analysis. A full reference list is contained in Section 7.0, References and Report Preparers. The Alternatives section of the EIR (Section 6.0) was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives discussion evaluates the CEQA-required “no project” alternative and two alternative development scenarios for the site. It also identifies the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives assessed. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3(e), the analysis of alternatives in an infill EIR need not address alternative locations, densities, or building intensities. Except as provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3(e), an Infill EIR must contain all elements described in Article 9, Contents of Environmental Impact Reports. The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable legal precedent. The CEQA Guidelines provide the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The Guidelines state: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. (Section 15151)

While the CEQA review in this EIR has been streamlined to some extent pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3, project-specific analysis was required for several environmental issues to meet the intent of Section 15183 and to provide the public and decision-makers with up to date and accurate environmental review for the project.

Environmental Impact Report 19 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies

The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible, and trustee agencies. The City of Berkeley is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project. Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a “lead agency” as: “…the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agency will decide whether an EIR or Negative Declaration will be required for the project and will cause the document to be prepared.”

A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project, and a trustee agency refers to a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. There are no responsible or trustee agencies for the project.

1.5 Environmental Review Process

The major steps in the environmental review process for an Infill EIR, as required under CEQA, are outlined below. The steps are presented in sequential order. 1. Determination of Eligibility for Infill EIR Process and Scope. The lead agency may review the proposed project under the applicable sections of the CEQA Guidelines and Statute to determine eligibility for an Infill EIR process and scope. This includes an analysis for consistency with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix M “Performance Standards for Infill Projects Eligible for Streamlined Review” and whether the proposed project meets the requirements in CEQA Statute Section 21099 for a “Transit Oriented Infill Project.” 2. Notice of Preparation (NOP). After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency must send an NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study or Infill Environmental Checklist that identifies the issue areas for which the proposed project could create significant environmental impacts. 3. Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). The Draft EIR must contain: a) Table of contents or index; b) Summary; c) Project description; d) Environmental setting; e) Discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, and unavoidable impacts); f) A discussion of alternatives; and g) Mitigation measures.

20 Introduction

4. Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability of Draft EIR. A lead agency must file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability of Draft EIR. The lead agency must place the Notice in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and send a copy of the Notice to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public, and respond in writing to all comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The minimum public review period for a Draft EIR is 30 days. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days unless the Clearinghouse (Public Resources Code 21091) approves a shorter period. 5. Final EIR (FEIR). A FEIR must include: a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments. 6. Certification of FEIR. Prior to making a decision on a project, the lead agency must in its independent judgment certify that: a) the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the FEIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the FElR prior to approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). 7. Lead Agency Project Decision. A lead agency may: a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043). 8. Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency's decision. 9. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects. 10. Notice of Determination. An agency must file a Notice of Determination after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the Notice with the County Clerk. The Notice must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the Notice starts a 35-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).

Environmental Impact Report 21 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

This page intentionally left blank.

22 Project Description

2 Project Description

This section describes the project location, characteristics of the site and the proposed development, project objectives, and the approvals needed to implement the 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project.

2.1 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address

Don Peterson PR III Shattuck LLC 2190 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, California 94704

2.2 Project Location

The project site, assessor’s parcel number (APN) 57-2026-004-05, is located at 2190 Shattuck Avenue, on the northwest corner of Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, in the Downtown area of the city of Berkeley. The site has frontage on Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, and is adjacent to the southern end of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Plaza associated with the Downtown Berkeley BART Station. It is also accessible by several bus lines operated by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), including lines 6, 7, 12, 18, 25, 49, 51B, 52, 65, 67, 88, 800, 851, and F, along with shuttle buses serving the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Local access is provided by Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way. Regional vehicular access is provided by Interstate 80 (I-80), California State Route 13, California State Route 123 (San Pablo Avenue) and California State Route 24. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site within the region and Figure 2 shows the project site’s immediate location and selected nearby land uses.

2.3 Current Land Use

The project site, part of a fully urbanized block in Downtown Berkeley, is entirely covered by a two-story commercial building with a basement and 38,700 total square feet of retail and office space. The first floor has retail space occupied by a drug store and pharmacy (Walgreens) and the second floor has administrative office (roundCorner) and electronics development and administration (Nokia) uses. The basement was occupied by Fast Response, a paramedics and phlebotomy training center, until December 2016, and is currently vacant. This building has frontage on Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way. The site is generally level, sloping approximately five feet downward from east to west property boundaries. Figures 3 and 4 show photographs of the existing building and its surroundings, respectively.

Environmental Impact Report 23 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 1 Regional Location

24 Project Description

Figure 2 Project Location Map

Environmental Impact Report 25 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 3 Site Photographs

Northwest view of the existing building on-site across Shattuck Avenue, the under construction BART plaza, and adjacent buildings to the north

Eastward view of southern façade of the existing building from Allston Way

26 Project Description

Figure 4 Surrounding Area Photographs

Westward view of Shattuck Hotel building, located across Allston Way to the south of the project site. The approved 18-story building at 2211 Harold Way would be constructed at the rear of this building

View of Downtown Berkeley along Shattuck Avenue north of the project site

Environmental Impact Report 27 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Table 4 summarizes the existing characteristics of the project site and surroundings.

Table 4 Existing Site Characteristics Address 2190 Shattuck Avenue Assessor’s Parcel Number 57-2026-004-05 Site Size 19,967 square feet (0.46-acre) General and Specific Plan Land Use Downtown (DT); Downtown Area Plan “Core Area” Designation Zoning Designation Downtown Mixed Use District (C-DMU), Core Sub-Area Current Use and Development Commercial Surrounding General and Specific DT; Downtown Area Plan “Core Area” in all directions Plan Land Use Designations Surrounding Zoning Designations C-DMU – Core Area in all directions Regional Access Interstate 80/580, State Route 24, SR 123, SR 13 Local Access Shattuck Avenue, Allston Way Public Services Water: East Bay Municipal Utility District Wastewater: East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Berkeley Solid Waste: City of Berkeley Fire Protection: Berkeley Fire Department Police Protection: Berkeley Police Department School District: Berkeley Unified, Central Zone

2.4 Surrounding Land Uses

The project site is located in the ”Core Area” sub-area of the Commercial-Downtown Mixed- Use (C-DMU) zone within Downtown Berkeley, and is immediately surrounded by commercial, public and institutional land uses, as shown in Figure 2 above. The Downtown Core, as described in the Downtown Area Plan, is known for “its exceptional access to transit, shops amenities, and the UC campus. The Core Area contains BART, the convergence of over thirty bus lines, unique cultural resources, and the highest volume of foot traffic in the East Bay.” Commercial retail, restaurant, and office uses are located along Shattuck Avenue to the north, east, and south of the project site. The main lobby and entrance of the Shattuck Hotel, a City of Berkeley Landmark, face the project site from the south side of Allston Way. The Shattuck Hotel building includes hotel rooms and a row of commercial storefronts along Shattuck Avenue, as well as the entrance to the Shattuck Cinemas, a 10-screen movie theater. A new 18-story residential and commercial mixed-use development, the 2211 Harold Way Mixed Use Project, was approved by the City in December 2015 at a location adjacent to and southwest of the project site across Allston Way. This project would involve demolition of existing structures along Harold Way and parts of Kittredge Street and Allston Way, including portions of later additions to the Shattuck Hotel, and replacement of the Shattuck Cinemas with a new movie theater. As shown in Figure 2, a range of public and institutional uses occur within one block of the project site, including the Downtown Berkeley BART Station, Berkeley City College, the

28 Project Description

Downtown Berkeley YMCA, the Downtown Berkeley U.S. Post Office, and Berkeley High School. As shown in Figure 3, the outdoor plaza associated with the BART Station, which is located between Shattuck Avenue and the eastern property line, is currently under construction for planned improvements. A six-level public parking lot is located adjacent to and west of the project site on Allston Way. Several AC Transit and UC Berkeley Shuttle bus stops serving a number of bus lines are located within one block of the project site on Shattuck Avenue, between Allston Way and Center Street. A bus stop for AC Transit’s Route 88 is also located adjacent to the project site on Allston Way. Building heights in the vicinity range from one story (the Fresco Mexican Grill building at 2177 Shattuck Avenue) to 14 stories (the 180-foot First Savings/Great Western Building at 2150 Shattuck Avenue). The 12-story 2140–2144 Shattuck Avenue Chamber of Commerce Building (173 feet) is located one block north of the project site. The adjacent Shattuck Hotel to the south is five stories in height, not including the basement. Although the First Savings/Great Western and Chamber of Commerce buildings figure prominently to the north, most buildings around the project site are in the two- to five-story range, including the adjacent five-story Shattuck Hotel, located just to the south..

2.5 Land Use Regulatory Overview

City of Berkeley General Plan The project site’s General Plan Land Use classification is Downtown. The Downtown classification is intended to “encourage, promote, and enhance development that will increase the residential population in the Downtown, provide new high density, transit- oriented housing opportunities, and support a vital city center. Uses appropriate for this area include: medium- and high-density housing, regional- and local-serving arts, entertainment, retail, office, cultural, open space, civic uses, and institutional uses and facilities. It is General Plan policy to increase the residential population in the Downtown.” (The General Plan also states that building intensity will generally range from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 1 to an FAR of 6 and that population density will generally range from 88 to 220 persons per net acre; however, the City’s Downtown Area Plan vision for development in the Core Area, discussed further below, supersedes the General Plan’s specific standards for Downtown development intensity. As discussed in the DAP EIR, the DAP was developed to provide specific policy guidance for future development in the Downtown Area; the DAP amended the General Plan, eliminating any conflict with General Plan Policies.)

Downtown Area Plan The Downtown Area Plan (DAP) provides additional, specific land use guidance within the Downtown area. The DAP classifies the project site in the Core Area land use. (Site and surrounding DAP land use classifications are shown in Figure 5.) The DAP includes the following discussion of development potential in the Core Area: “Because of immediate access to BART, multiple bus lines, and walk-to conveniences, provisions for the Core Area allow the tallest buildings, including three buildings up to 180 feet.” The DAP identifies commercial uses, including retail and cinema, and multi-family residential uses as allowed uses in the Core Area (DAP Policy LU-1.1).

Environmental Impact Report 29 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 5 Site and Surrounding Downtown Area Plan Land Use Classifications

30 Project Description

Berkeley Municipal Code The project site is located in the “Core Area” zoning sub-area of the Commercial-Downtown Mixed-Use (C-DMU) zone within Downtown Berkeley. Specific allowed uses and development standards for the project site are thus contained in the Municipal Code in Chapter 23E.68, C-DMU Downtown Mixed Use District Provisions. Pursuant to Table 23E.68.030 in that section, retail, restaurant and mixed commercial and residential uses may be permitted in the C-DMU District. Pursuant to Section 23E.68.070, Development Standards, up to two residential buildings with ground-level commercial uses are allowed to reach heights up to 180 feet in the Core Area subarea of the C-DMU District. Section 23E.68.080 of the Municipal Code prescribes standards for automotive and bicycle parking spaces in the C-DMU District. The minimum parking space requirements relevant to the proposed project are one and a half spaces per each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and one space per three dwelling units. Parking spaces must be provided on-site, or offsite within 800 feet subject to securing an Administrate Use Permit and in compliance with the off-street parking requirements in Section 23E.28.030. Bicycle parking spaces must be provided for new construction at the ratio of one space per 2,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial space. In accordance with Section 23E.28.070, bicycle parking must be located in either a locker, or in a rack suitable for secure locks, upon the approval of the City Traffic Engineer and Zoning Officer. Section 23E.68.080 requires that for new structures or additions over 20,000 square feet, the property owner provide a pass for unlimited local bus transit service or functionally equivalent transit benefit. Section 23E.68.085, Green Building Provisions, requires that new buildings in the C-DMU District attain a LEED Gold rating or higher, or its equivalent. Section 23E.68.065 affirms that projects that may create potentially significant environmental impacts, such as the proposed project, are subject to the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program for the DAP EIR. Finally, among the several findings required for approval of a Use Permit for a new building in the C-DMU District, the Zoning Adjustments Board must find that the project is compatible with the visual character and form of the District; that no designated landmark structure, structure of merit, or historic district in the vicinity would be adversely affected by the appearance or design of the project, and that the project will provide significant community benefits, either directly or by providing funding for such benefits to the satisfaction of the City, beyond what would otherwise be required.

Downtown Design Guidelines The DAP also called for updates to the City’s Downtown Design Guidelines to update the design vision as appropriate and to address the potential changes envisioned by the DAP. Among the key site design guidelines for new construction applicable to the project include the following frontage, setback, and height guidelines: 1. Maintain a continuous zero-setback ”build-to line” at the ground floor at the edge of all Downtown streets where commercial and higher levels of activity is anticipated, as has been indicated in the map “Public Serving Frontages” (. The only exceptions to this may be to: provide suitably defined, usable open space; create a special corner feature; provide recessed storefront entrances; create an arcade; to provide a narrow band of landscaping (); or to give emphasis to a civic building. 2. On Downtown streets without commercial or higher levels of activity, bring buildings close to the street-facing property line while also providing landscaping.

Environmental Impact Report 31 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

3. Continue the rhythm of 15-30 foot spacing of structural bays and/or enframed storefronts at ground level, in order to establish visual continuity with existing buildings and create pedestrian scale. 4. Design recessed storefront entrances so they do not exceed 50% of the width of the storefront, nor ten feet in depth. 5. Consider massing alternatives that would reduce shadow impacts on streets and relate new construction to the scale of nearby buildings, such as use of upper-story setbacks. Consider ways that buildings with upper-story setbacks can avoid the “wedding cake effect,” such as by setting street-level entrances back to the same vertical plane as upper floors and/or by incorporating features that tie the building together visually. 6. For new construction projects located on narrow east-to-west streets and over 75 feet in height, prepare an analysis of shade impacts on public open spaces and pedestrian sidewalks across the street. East of Shattuck, analyze visual impacts of ridgeline views to the east. Based on such analysis/ analyses, consider upper floor setbacks, setbacks at street corners or other techniques to mitigate negative impacts. 7. Place entrances to storefronts and other ground floor uses so that they are accessible directly from the public sidewalk, not internal lobbies. 8. Design entrances of individual buildings to contribute positively to the street. Main entries should be clearly identifiable and inviting, and located to encourage interaction between open space and pedestrians. 9. New curb cuts in the Downtown core area are discouraged. Existing driveways may be relocated or replaced. 10. Maintain and reinforce Downtown’s historic streetwall at the property line. Upper floor setbacks are desirable above 60 feet (usually the fifth floor for residential construction), and should be used above 75 feet. 11. For buildings over 85 feet in height, prepare an analysis of potential wind impacts. Protect sidewalks and public open spaces by deflecting downward wind drafts (“wind shear”) by using building setbacks, recesses, projections, and other devices. For projects with potentially significant wind impacts, evaluate massing options with a wind tunnel or other simulation, such as are available at UC Berkeley’s College of Environmental Design. 12. Consider how the building’s form and orientation can take advantage of sun and shade to appropriately heat and cool the building.

32 Project Description

2.6 Project Characteristics

Project Overview and Design The 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project is a proposed 211,590-square-foot residential and commercial mixed-use development in Downtown Berkeley. The project would involve demolition of an existing two-story commercial building that covers the entire project site and construction of an 18-story building with commercial retail ground-floor uses, residential upper-floor uses, and a two-level subterranean parking garage. The commercial storefronts would front on the Shattuck Avenue BART Plaza and wrap around to Allston Way on the south. A 677-square-foot community art space next to the residential lobby would be available for community events. The proposed building would have components of various heights, with the highest portion reaching 180 feet, excluding rooftop architectural projections (a parapet and elevator enclosures) that would extend up to approximately 190 feet. The project would maintain a continuous street wall at the edge of the abutting streets up to where the building would step back toward the interior of the site. At a height of approximately 72 feet (seven stories) above street level, the building would step back 15 feet from Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way. Above the 12th floor, the building would step back an additional 65 feet from Shattuck Avenue. This stepped massing is intended to minimize sight lines of the proposed 18-story tower from the perspective of people on Shattuck Avenue. Prominent building materials would include movable and fixed shutters made of slotted aluminum panels on the southern façade of residential floors, allowing residents to control solar and visual exposure; glass curtain walls and spandrel panels on the eastern and western façades; vertical fins of translucent glass on the western façade to reduce solar heat gains and glare; private balconies with cantilevered glass panels; and ground-floor art vitrines on Allston Way with wood panels and glass windows. The slotted aluminum panels on the second to sixth stories would be slightly angled, or slanted, at alternating angles rather than parallel to the property lines. Table 5 summarizes the basic project components, and Figures 6 through 19 show the proposed floor plans and conceptual building elevations. Figure 20 shows the proposed project’s massing in the context of the site vicinity.

Table 5 Project Summary

Use Gross Floor Area (square feet) Units

Residential 196,3421 274 Commercial 10,000 n/a Parking 5,2482 103 auto 100 bike

Max. Building Height: 180 feet/18 stories

1 Residential circulation (includes residential core, circulation, amenities, storage, and ancillary spaces at ground floor such as the lobby and bike storage). 2 Although the parking garage would have 19,707 square feet, only 5,248 square feet (including the bottoms of elevator and stair shafts, storage rooms, mechanical rooms, and trash rooms) would be counted as gross floor area. Source: WRNS Studio, December 2016

Environmental Impact Report 33 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Residential Component The residential component of the project would be accommodated on floors two through 18. Residential units would be accessed from a residential lobby on Allston Way or from the below-grade parking garage. The unit count is shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Residential Unit Summary

Average Floor Area Unit Type Count (square feet)

Micro 57 389

Studio 63 554

1 Bedroom 93 611

2 Bedroom 61 889

Total 274

Source: WRNS Studio, December 2016

Because the proposed residential units would be available for rent, the project is subject to the City’s Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (AMHF) Ordinance (Section 22.20.065 of the Berkeley Municipal Code), which requires that the applicant either (1) pay an AHMF; (2) provide below-market-rate (BMR) units in lieu of the AHMF; or (3) pay a reduced AHMF in combination with a reduced number of BMR units. The project would include 21,924 square feet of residential open space on rooftop terraces and gardens and private balconies for residents. Proposed private residential open space would consist of: . 10,438 total square feet of terraces on the 2nd, 8th, and 13th floors, and the rooftop . 10,586 total square feet of usable balconies for selected units, ranging from 73 to 618 square feet per unit.

Additionally, the project would include 449 square feet of public open space on the site’s Allston Way frontage adjacent to the driveway and residential lobby, featuring stone paving, trees, planters, and benches.

34 Project Description

Figure 6 Proposed Second Basement Level Floor Plan

Environmental Impact Report 35 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 7 Proposed First Basement Level Floor Plan

36 Project Description

Figure 8 Proposed Level 1 Floor Plan

Environmental Impact Report 37 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 9 Proposed Level 2 Floor Plan

38 Project Description

Figure 10 Proposed Levels 3-6 Floor Plan

Environmental Impact Report 39 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 11 Proposed Level 7 Floor Plan

40 Project Description

Figure 12 Proposed Level 8 Floor Plan

Environmental Impact Report 41 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 13 Proposed Levels 9-12 Floor Plan

42 Project Description

Figure 14 Proposed Level 13 Floor Plan

Environmental Impact Report 43 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 15 Proposed Levels 14-18 Floor Plan

44 Project Description

Figure 16 Proposed Roof Plan

Environmental Impact Report 45 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 17 Proposed South (Allston Way) Elevation

46 Project Description

Figure 18 Proposed North Elevation

Environmental Impact Report 47 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 19 Proposed East-West Elevations

48 Project Description

Figure 20 Proposed Project Massing Context

Retail Commercial Component The proposed 10,000 square-foot retail commercial floor area would be oriented toward Shattuck Avenue on the first (ground floor) level. The commercial entrance would be recessed at the southern end of the building’s frontage on the Shattuck Avenue BART Plaza. The applicant anticipates that the existing commercial tenant on-site, a Walgreens drug store, would temporarily relocate offsite during construction and then return after construction to occupy the proposed building’s commercial space. The proposed commercial space would have a windowed storefront facing the BART Plaza. Private commercial open space with an area of 224 square feet would be located at the proposed retail entrance.

Access, Parking, Circulation and Transportation Demand Management Vehicular access to the proposed two-level subterranean garage would be provided via a two-way driveway ramp from Allston Way. Of the 103 proposed automobile parking spaces in the garage, 77 spaces would be available on three-tiered mechanical lifts, 15 would be on tandem mechanical lifts, five would be standard spaces, and six would be accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA accessible). The applicant would provide four electric vehicle charging stations and offer five car share parking spaces. Parking would be leased or sold separate from the rental or purchase of dwelling units (i.e., unbundled), as required by Section 23E.68.080 of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC). In addition, 100 secure bicycle parking spaces and a bicycle repair shop would be provided indoors at the northwest end of the first floor, accessible from a residential entrance and walkway at the far western side of the building. AC Transit passes would be provided to every employee and residential unit on-site, consistent with BMC Section 23E.68.080. Pedestrian access would be available from fronting sidewalks on Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way. While the retail entry would be on Shattuck Avenue, the residential entrance leading to the 1,342 square-foot residential lobby would be on Allston Way, east of the proposed garage’s driveway. A private stairwell at the northeast end of the building would

Environmental Impact Report 49 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project provide a second pedestrian access to and from the BART Plaza, the subterranean garage, and residential floors. A 25-foot-long commercial loading zone would be provided on the project site’s Allston Way frontage, east of the proposed driveway ramp. This loading zone would accommodate trucks serving the retail commercial space on the first level. Adjacent to the east of the commercial loading zone, a 135-foot-long bus layover zone marked with a red curb would be provided on the north side of Allston Way. Community Benefits Package Because the proposed building would exceed 75 feet in height, the applicant would be required under BMC Section 23E.68.090.E to provide “significant community benefits” subject to review and approval by the City Council. To date, the applicant has not submitted a community benefits package. However, proposed improvements for public use both within and facing the rights-of-way on Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way would function as community benefits. At the BART Plaza, seating and other pedestrian amenities may be provided in coordination with improvements planned by BART at that site. The site’s Allston Way frontage would feature art vitrines with glass display cases integrated in the retail commercial storefront, enhanced stone paving on the sidewalk and along the curb, benches, planted trees, and bike racks. The art vitrines would display the works of local artists, community activities, architectural models, or relevant community information. The sidewalk by the art vitrines would connect to a proposed Allston Plaza that marks the entry into the residential lobby and community art space. This plaza would feature stone paving, trees, planters, and benches. The 677 square-foot community art space next to the residential lobby would be available for community events.

Sustainable Building Features The project would be designed to achieve a LEED Gold (or equivalent) rating, as required under BMC Section 23E.68.085.A. The project’s sustainability features include: . Roof gardens to reduce heat island effect and delay stormwater runoff . Solar shading for residential units . Low emissivity glass to minimize need for building cooling . Hot water generated by solar thermal power . Transportation Demand Management features as listed above, including AC Transit passes for each residential household and commercial employee, five car share parking spaces, four electric vehicle charging stations, and secure bicycle parking.

Site Preparation and Construction The existing two-story, 38,700 square-foot building with retail commercial and office space at 2190 Shattuck Avenue would be demolished. Construction of the proposed project, including demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving, would take place over an estimated 27 months. Approximately 25,000 cubic yards of cut would be required during excavation for the proposed building’s foundation and subterranean parking garage. The applicant proposes to provide internal bracing of excavation along Shattuck Avenue, in order to meet BART guidelines that projects not impose any vertical or lateral loads on soil within eight feet of buried tunnel structures. Alternatively, excavation may be supported by slurry walls or secant pile walls that are internally braced with steel. The

50 Project Description maximum depth to the bottom of the lowest proposed foundation would be 41 feet below the existing street-level grade. The proposed building would be founded on a concrete mat foundation (a type of continuous thick-slab foundation) varying from approximately four to eight feet in thickness. The mat foundation is intended to provide an efficient system for resisting gravity and seismic loads while resisting hydrostatic pressure from groundwater. Within two feet of the eastern property line, the building’s columns would be supported by piles founded below BART’s Zone of Influence. This zone extends as high as an imaginary 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) line that rises at an angle from the bottom of the BART tunnel’s deepest structure facing the project site. Soldier piles would be installed with a track-mounted drilling rig; no impact or vibratory pile drivers would be used. The foundations would not be base isolated, and piers would not be required to resist seismic loads. After the installation of utility connections, Allston Way would be repaved adjacent to the project site with the use of rollers.

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

Requested Entitlements The proposed project is subject to approval by the City of Berkeley’s Zoning Adjustments Board. The project would require the following discretionary entitlements from the City of Berkeley: . Use Permit to demolish a non-residential building . Use Permit for a Mixed Use Development in the C-DMU Zoning District . Use Permit to construct two-level parking garage . Use Permit to construct more than 10,000 square feet of floor area . Use Permit to exceed a building height of 75 feet . Use Permit for portion of building exceeding 120 feet in height to be greater than 120 feet in width when measured at widest point on the diagonal in plan view . Administrative Use Permit to allow architectural projections to exceed maximum building height

Environmental Impact Report 51 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

2.7 Project Objectives

The objectives of the applicant for the proposed 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project are to: 1. Implement the Downtown Area Plan and Street & Open Space Improvement Plan by taking advantage of the full development potential under Zoning Ordinance standards and in turn, generating the revenue necessary to support the amenities and community benefits envisioned in the Downtown Area Plan, and maintaining the financial feasibility of the Project. 2. Generate much-needed, highly livable, transit-oriented, and sustainable market rate housing; and contribute substantial affordable housing (and/or fees to support development of such housing) as required by Berkeley Municipal Code Section 22.20.065. 3. Assist the State, region and the City to achieve established housing production goals. 4. Design a project that is feasible and contributes positively to the economic, social, and environmental goals of the City. 5. Establish a thriving, livable and diverse residential neighborhood that maximizes transit- oriented density and establish an environmentally sustainable community with 400-450 new residents. 6. Stimulate and activate the pedestrian environment along Allston Way by replacing the existing structure, with vibrant, walkable retail and pedestrian amenities and offering diverse, walk-to destinations. 7. Upgrade and revitalize an important urban block in Downtown Berkeley into a walkable, retail-centered, transit-friendly, residential block with active, safe and visually engaging pedestrian amenities consistent with the Downtown Area Plan and the Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan, while respecting key historic resources on adjacent blocks. 8. Develop a superior building, integrating environmentally sustainable development practices in design, development, and construction. 9. Utilize ecologically beneficial landscaping techniques that complement and enhance the local environment and reinforce the City’s commitment to environmental sustainability, promote watershed health and create safe, comfortable, and inviting open spaces. 10. Actively encourage alternative modes of transportation by foot, by bicycle and via transit, for residents, employees, and retail customers by providing residents and employees with a range of Transportation Demand Management measures that are made possible by the income generated by the project’s size and scale, and prioritizing the safety, attractiveness and convenience of the pedestrian experience. 11. Generate significant new revenue streams for the City of Berkeley through increased property taxes and property-based revenues, economically sensitive revenues such as sales taxes and business license taxes, jobs creation, gross receipts taxes, and a new residential population that supports a successful mix of retail businesses, institutions and other attractions in Downtown Berkeley.

52 Environmental Setting

3 Environmental Setting

This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the project. More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting germane to the main issue areas studied in this EIR can be found in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 Regional Setting

The project site is located in the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, within the greater San Francisco Bay Area (refer to Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Project Location Map, in Section 2.0, Project Description). Berkeley is located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of downtown San Francisco. The City is bounded to the north by the City of Albany, to the east by Contra Costa County and the City of Oakland, to the south by the cities of Oakland and Emeryville, and to the west by the San Francisco Bay. Berkeley has a Mediterranean climate with dry summers and wet winters. Summers in Berkeley are cooler than typical Mediterranean climates due to upwelling ocean currents along the California coast. The average rainfall is 24 inches a year. The region is subject to various natural hazards, including earthquakes, landslides, and wildfires.

3.2 Project Site Setting

The 0.46-acre project site is slightly trapezoidal in shape, with frontage on Allston Way and Shattuck Avenue. The site is generally level, sloping approximately five feet downward from east to west. As part of a fully urbanized block in Downtown Berkeley, the site is entirely covered by a two-story commercial building with a basement and lacks vegetation. The first floor has retail space occupied by a drug store and pharmacy (Walgreens); the second floor has administrative office (roundCorner) and electronics development and administration (Nokia) uses. Until December 2016, the basement was occupied by Fast Response, a paramedics and phlebotomy training center; it is currently vacant. Pedestrian access to the building is available at the Walgreens retail entrance on the corner of Allston Way and Shattuck Avenue and to the west along Allston Way. No vehicular access to the project site is available. Commercial retail, restaurant, and office uses are located along Shattuck Avenue to the north, east, and south of the project site. The main lobby and entrance of the Shattuck Hotel, a City of Berkeley Landmark, face the project site from the south side of Allston Way. The Shattuck Hotel building includes hotel rooms and a row of commercial storefronts along Shattuck Avenue, as well as the entrance to the Shattuck Cinemas, a 10-screen movie theater. A new 18-story residential and commercial mixed-use development, the 2211 Harold Way Mixed Use Project, was approved by the City in December 2015 at a location adjacent to and southwest of the project site across Allston Way. This project would involve demolition of existing structures along Harold Way and parts of Kittredge Street and Allston Way, including portions of later additions to the Shattuck Hotel, and replacement of the Shattuck Cinemas with a new movie theater.

Environmental Impact Report 53 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

As shown in Figure 2, a range of public and institutional uses occur within one block of the project site, including the Downtown Berkeley BART Station, Berkeley City College, the Downtown Berkeley YMCA, the Downtown Berkeley U.S. Post Office, and Berkeley High School. The outdoor plaza associated with the BART Station, which is located between Shattuck Avenue and the eastern property line, is currently under construction for planned improvements. In addition, a six-level public parking lot is located adjacent to and west of the project site on Allston Way. Several AC Transit and UC Berkeley Shuttle bus stops serving a number of bus lines are located within one block of the project site on Shattuck Avenue, between Allston Way and Center Street. A bus stop for AC Transit’s Route 88 is also located adjacent to the project site on Allston Way. Building heights in the vicinity range from one story (the Fresco Mexican Grill building at 2177 Shattuck Avenue) to 14 stories (the 180-foot First Savings/Great Western Building at 2150 Shattuck Avenue). The 12-story 2140–2144 Shattuck Avenue Chamber of Commerce Building (173 feet) is located one block north of the project site. The adjacent Shattuck Hotel to the south is five stories in height, not including the basement. Most buildings around the project site are in the two- to five-story range, although the First Savings/Green Western and Chamber of Commerce buildings figure prominently to the north.

3.3 Cumulative Development

CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more individual events that, when considered together, are considerable or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are those changes in the environment arising as a result of the incremental impact imposed by development of proposed projects combined with other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately, but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis in the EIR provides a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions that allow the analysis to offer a more precise gauge of the effects a series of projects will potentially create. CEQA states that a discussion of cumulative impacts should include either: 1) a list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or 2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the other cumulative impact. Table 7 lists current planned and pending projects in Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan study area. These projects are considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. These projects are consistent with the overall buildout of the Downtown Area as envisioned in the Downtown Area Plan, and are within the development potential under the Plan that was analyzed in the Downtown Area Plan EIR.

54 Environmental Setting

Table 7 Cumulative Projects in Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan Study Area

Commercial Net Floor Area (Net Dwelling Location Square Feet)1 Units1 Description

1970-87 Shattuck Avenue; 2101- -8,230 1972 Demolition/relocation of 2113 and 2125-2145 University residences, removal of office uses, Avenue; 1922, 1924, and 1930 rehabilitation of commercial space, Walnut Street construction of residences

1974 University Avenue 6,400 98 Demolition of commercial building, construction of mixed-use building

2067 University Avenue -3,362 50 Demolition of commercial building, construction of mixed-use building

1931-35 Addison Street 7,240 69 Demolition of commercial buildings, construction of mixed-use building

1950 Addison Street -24,182 107 Demolition of commercial building, construction of residential building

2211 Harold Way -39,524 302 Demolition of commercial floor area, construction of mixed uses

2129 Shattuck Avenue 260,540 334 Demolition of bank, construction of (hotel hotel/commercial building rooms)

2121 Durant Avenue 413 45 Demolition of residential building, construction of mixed-use building

2025 Center Street 0 0 Replacement of public parking garage

2107 Dwight Way -15,507 99 Demolition of commercial buildings, construction of mixed-use building

Approximate Cumulative Total 183,788 1,301

Sources: Berkeley 2012a, 2013, 2014, 2015b, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d. 1. All totals are approximate based on standard uncertainties related to specific project information. A negative value indicates the loss of a quantity relative to existing development at a location. 2. The entitled Acheson Commons project would involve the demolition or relocation of eight vacant residential units on Walnut Street and the construction of 202 residential units and three live-work units, for a net gain of 197 dwelling units on- site.

Environmental Impact Report 55 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

This page intentionally left blank.

56 Environmental Impact Analysis

4 Environmental Impact Analysis

This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the proposed project for the specific issue areas that were identified through the Infill Environmental Checklist process as having the potential to experience significant impacts. “Significant effect” is defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 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. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment, but may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.” The assessment of environmental effects contained in each issue area begins with a discussion of the setting. Following the setting is a discussion of the project’s impacts. Within the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria used for this analysis to determine whether potential impacts are significant. The next subsection describes the impact of the proposed project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. The significance of the project’s environmental impacts was identified based on the following classifications: . Significant and Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved. . Less than Significant with Mitigation: An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings to be made. . Less than Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. . Beneficial: An impact that would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other future development in the area.

Environmental Impact Report 57 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

This page intentionally left blank.

58 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality

4.1 Air Quality

This section analyzes the project’s potential temporary and long-term impacts to local and regional air quality as well as its consistency with the regional air quality management plan (AQMP). Greenhouse gas emissions are discussed in the Infill Environmental Checklist (see Appendix A). Setting Climate and Meteorology The project site is located in the city of Berkeley within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Bay Area’s moderate climate steers storm tracks away from the region for much of the year, although storms generally affect the region from November through April. Berkeley’s proximity to the onshore breezes stimulated by the Pacific Ocean provide for generally very good air quality. However, during the ozone smog season (typically, May through October), transport studies have shown that ozone precursor emissions generated in Oakland and Berkeley are often transported to other regions of the Bay Area and beyond (e.g., Central Valley) that are more conducive to the formation of ozone smog. In the winter, reduced solar energy and cooler temperatures diminish ozone smog formation, but increase the likelihood of carbon monoxide formation. Average annual temperatures in the area are in the mid-fifties, generally ranging from the low-forties on winter mornings to mid-seventies during summer afternoons. Daily and seasonal oscillations of temperature are small because of the moderating effects of the nearby ocean. In contrast to the steady temperature regime, rainfall is highly variable and confined almost exclusively to the “rainy” period from November through April. About 95 percent of the average annual rainfall of approximately 30 inches occurs during this period. Precipitation may vary widely from year to year as a shift in the annual storm track of a few hundred miles can mean the difference between a wet year and drought conditions. Winds in the project area display several characteristic regimes. During the day, especially under fair weather conditions, winds are from the west and northwest as air is funneled through the Golden Gate toward Berkeley. At night, cooling of the land generates winds from the east and southeast. Summer afternoon sea breezes typically range from 20 to 30 miles per hour. Peak annual winds occur during winter storms. South and southeast winds typically also precede weather systems passing through the region. Air Pollutants of Primary Concern The federal and State Clean Air Acts mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for certain “criteria” pollutants. Ambient air pollutant concentrations are affected by the rates and distributions of corresponding air pollutant emissions, as well as by the climate and topographic influences discussed above. The primary determinant of concentrations of non- reactive pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO) and suspended particulate matter (PM), is proximity to major sources. Ambient CO levels usually closely follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. A discussion of primary criteria pollutants is provided below.

Environmental Impact Report 59 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Ozone Ozone is a colorless gas with a pungent odor. Most ozone in the atmosphere is formed as a result of the interaction of ultraviolet light, reactive organic gases (ROG), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). ROG (the organic compound fraction relevant to ozone formation, and sufficiently equivalent for the purposes of this analysis to volatile organic compounds, or VOC) is composed of non-methane hydrocarbons (with some specific exclusions), and NOX is made of different chemical combinations of nitrogen and oxygen, mainly NO and NO2. A highly reactive molecule, ozone readily combines with many different components of the atmosphere. Consequently, high levels of ozone tend to exist only while high ROG and NOX levels are present to sustain the ozone formation process. Once the precursors have been depleted, ozone levels rapidly decline. Because these reactions occur on a regional rather than local scale, ozone is considered a regional pollutant.

Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas. CO causes a number of health problems including fatigue, headache, confusion, and dizziness. The incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels in on-road vehicles and at power plants is a major cause of CO. CO is also produced during the winter from wood stoves and fireplaces. CO tends to dissipate rapidly into the atmosphere; consequently, violations of the State CO standard are generally associated with major roadway intersections during peak-hour traffic conditions. Localized CO “hotspots” can occur at intersections with heavy peak-hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO concentration exceeds the federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) of 35.0 parts per million (ppm) or the State AAQS of 20.0 ppm.

Nitrogen Dioxide

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 is an acute irritant. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur. NO2 absorbs blue light and causes a reddish brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of PM10 and acid rain.

Suspended Particulates

PM10 is small particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter, while PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter. Suspended particulates are mostly dust particles, nitrates, and sulfates. They are a by-product of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads, and are directly emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Suspended particulates are also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects associated with the small particulates (those between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter) and fine particulates (PM2.5) can be very different. The small particulates generally come from windblown dust and dust kicked up from mobile sources. The fine particulates are generally associated with combustion processes as well as being formed in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. Fine particulate matter is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a serious health threat to all

60 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate matter that is inhaled into the lungs remains there, which can cause permanent lung damage. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance.

Lead Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment, as well as in manufacturing products. The major sources of lead emissions historically have been mobile and industrial sources. In the early 1970s, the U.S. EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The U.S. EPA completed the ban prohibiting the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, atmospheric lead concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. The most dramatic reductions in lead emissions occurred prior to 1990 due to the removal of lead from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Lead emissions were further reduced substantially between 1990 and 2008, with reductions occurring in the metals industries at least in part as a result of national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (U.S. EPA 2013). As a result of phasing out leaded gasoline, metal processing currently is the primary source of lead emissions. The highest level of lead in the air is generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Current Ambient Air Quality CARB and the U.S. EPA have established ambient air quality standards for ozone, CO, NO2, lead, and PM10 and PM2.5. Standards have been set at levels intended to be protective of public health. Local air districts and CARB monitor ambient air quality to assure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met, develop strategies to meet the standards. Air quality monitoring stations measure ground-level concentrations of pollutants (typically, 10 feet above ground level). Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the local air basin is classified as in “attainment” or “non-attainment.” Some areas are unclassified, which means no monitoring data are available. Unclassified areas are considered to be in attainment. The City of Berkeley is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Table 8 summarizes the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each of these pollutants as well as the attainment status of the SFBAAB.

Environmental Impact Report 61 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Table 8 Ambient Air Quality Standards & Basin Attainment Status

California Standards National Standards Averaging Attainment Attainment Pollutant Time Concentration Status Concentration Status Ozone 8 Hour 0.070 ppm N 0.070 ppm N 1 Hour 0.09 ppm N Carbon Monoxide 8 Hour 9.0 ppm A 9 ppm A 1 Hour 20 ppm A 35 ppm A Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Hour 0.18 ppm A 0.100 ppm U Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm A Arithmetic Mean Sulfur Dioxide 24 Hour 0.04 ppm A 0.14 ppm A 1 Hour 0.25 ppm A 0.075 ppm A Annual 0.030 ppm A Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Annual 20 µg/m3 N (PM10) Arithmetic Mean 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 N 150 µg/m3 U Particulate Matter Annual 12 µg/m3 N 12 µg/m3 U/A - Fine (PM2.5) Arithmetic Mean 24 Hour 35 µg/m3 N Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 A Lead Calendar 1.5 µg/m3 A Quarter Rolling 3 0.15 µg/m3 Month Average 30 Day 1.5 µg/m3) A Average Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm U Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.010 ppm No (chloroethene) information available Visibility 8 Hour(10:00 U Reducing to 18:00 PST) particles Source: BAAQMD 2017a. A=Attainment; N=Nonattainment; U=Unclassified; mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter; ppm=parts per million; µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter; PST = Pacific Standard Time

As shown in Table 8, the SFBAAB is in nonattainment for the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5. The SFBAAB is also in nonattainment for the State standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

62 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality

The closest monitoring station to the project site, the Oakland-West Monitoring Station, is approximately four miles to the southwest. Table 9 summarizes the representative annual air quality data at this monitoring station over the years 2013-2015 for all criteria pollutants, except PM10 since it was unavailable. Data for PM10 is derived from the next closest station, the San Pablo-Rumrill Boulevard Monitoring Station, which is located approximately eight miles northwest of the project site.

Table 9 Ambient Air Quality Data

Pollutant 2013 2014 2015

Ozone (ppm), Worst 1-Hour 0.071 0.072 0.091 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 0 Ozone (ppm), 8-Hour Average 0.059 0.059 0.064 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.07 ppm) 0 0 0 Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.07 ppm) 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide (ppm), Highest 8-Hour Average * * * Number of days of above State or Federal standard (>9.0 ppm) * * * Particulate Matter <10 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 45.6 44.3 43.0 Number of days above State standard (>50 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Number of days above Federal standard (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 42.7 38.8 38.7 Number of days above Federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 2 1 3

Source: CARB, Top 4 Summary, 2017. Data from Oakland-West Monitoring Station was used for all pollutants, except PM10, for which data from the San Pablo-Rumrill Blvd Monitoring Station was used. ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter * CARB had insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

Regulatory Setting The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) governs air quality in the United States. In addition to being subject to federal requirements, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act. These laws are administered by the CARB at the State level and by the Air Quality Management Districts at the regional and local levels. The BAAQMD regulates air quality at the regional level, which includes the nine-county Bay Area.

Federal The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing the federal CAA and for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are required under the 1977 CAA and subsequent amendments. The U.S. EPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency has jurisdiction over emission sources outside state waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shelf) and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission standards established by the CARB.

Environmental Impact Report 63 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

State In California, the CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is responsible for meeting the State requirements of the federal CAA, administering the California CAA, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The California CAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. The CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. The agency is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. The CARB established passenger vehicle fuel specifications, which became effective on March 1996. The CARB oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the regional and county level.

Regional The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the national and State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities. The BAAQMD has jurisdiction over much of the nine-county Bay Area, including all of Alameda County. The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 Plan) in April 2017 as an update to the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate. Consistent with the GHG reduction targets adopted by the State, the 2017 Plan lays the groundwork for a long-term effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (BAAQMD 2017b). To fulfill state ozone planning requirements, the 2017 control strategy includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors—reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)—and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017 Plan builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants (BAAQMD 2017b). Downtown Area Plan EIR Summary The DAP EIR discusses air quality impacts on pages 4-69 through 4-77 (project-level air quality impacts) and page 4-87 (cumulative air quality impacts). The DAP EIR examined a range of potential impacts related to local and regional air quality, including consistency with the 1991 Clean Air Plan (1991 CAP, October 1991); possible exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and odors; and construction period air quality impacts. Impacts were assessed in the context of adopted planning documents, including the City’s 2003 General Plan and 1991 CAP. The DAP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures: . Impact AIR-1: Conflict with CAP Assumptions. Development anticipated under the Downtown Area Plan would increase population and employment at a greater rate than assumed when preparing the latest update to the CAP. This could lead to

64 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality

greater regional emissions of nonattainment air pollutants (or their precursors) than assumed in the CAP. This would be a significant and unavoidable impact. . Impact AIR-2: Possible Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to TACs and Odors. Development anticipated under the Downtown Area Plan may expose sensitive receptors to TACs or odors through development of new residential units near non- residential uses that may be sources of TACs or odors, or through development of new non-residential development that may be sources of TACs or odors near existing residences or other sensitive receptors. Such exposure would represent a potentially significant impact. o Mitigation AIR-2: Buffer TAC and Odor Emission Sources and Sensitive Land Uses. Consider potential air pollution and odor impacts from future development that may emit pollution and/or odors when locating (a) air pollution sources, and (b) residential and other pollution-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of air pollution sources (which may include areas where buses idle, diesel generators, parking garage vents, restaurants, and other similar uses). Buffer sensitive receptors from TACs whenever possible and, if buffering is not feasible, apply appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, such as air filtration systems or other technologies. While the above mitigation can address most conflicts, because buffering will not always be feasible, the DAP is technically inconsistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, and the impact remains significant and unavoidable. . Impact AIR-3: Construction Period Air Quality Impacts. Construction of development projects under the DAP would result in temporary emissions of dust and diesel exhaust that may result in both nuisance and health impacts. Without appropriate measures to control these emissions, these impacts would be considered significant. o Mitigation AIR-3: Implement BAAQMD-Recommended Measures to Control PM10 Emissions during Construction. Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and PM10 from construction are recommended to ensure that short- term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided.

Dust (PM10) Control Measures: . Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times. . Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. . Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. . Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads. . Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (i.e., previously-graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more). . Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic_ soil binders to exposed stockpiles. . Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.

Environmental Impact Report 65 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site.

Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5: . Clear signage at all construction sites will be posted indicating that diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were onsite or adjacent to the construction site. . Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off-road diesel powered equipment. The project shall ensure that emissions from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately. . The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors). . Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.

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

Mitigation Measures AIR-2 and AIR-3 would apply to the proposed project. However, the DAP EIR concluded that impacts related to 1991 CAP consistency (Impact AIR-1) and possible exposure of sensitive receptors to odors (Impact AIR-2) would remain significant and unavoidable. Sensitive Receptors Federal and State ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under 14; persons over 65; persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise outdoors; and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The majority of sensitive receptor locations are therefore residences, schools, and hospitals. Nearby sensitive receptors include Berkeley City College (approximately 100 feet to the northwest), Berkeley Central Apartments (approximately 270 feet to the north), apartments at the Marsh Arts Center (approximately 300 feet to the east), apartments at K Street Flats (approximately 430 feet to the south), and Berkeley High School (approximately 500 feet to the southwest).

66 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality

Impact Analysis Methodology and Significance Thresholds The May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines establishes thresholds based on extensive analysis and substantial evidence, and it represents the best available science on the subject of what constitutes significant air quality and/or GHG effects for this project. Therefore, the City uses BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Thresholds to determine whether the impacts of the project exceed the thresholds identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Significance Thresholds The project’s air quality impacts would be significant if they exceed the following thresholds of significance, which are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on local or regional air quality if it would: 1) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people Because the Infill Environmental Checklist (see Appendix A) determined that the project would not have adverse effects regarding odors, impacts to odors are not further discussed in this analysis. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines quantify these thresholds with defined numeric values and evaluation criteria for pollutant emissions. These thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Basin‘s existing air quality conditions. Presented below are the quantitative thresholds for air quality impact evaluation from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017c). Construction Emissions. Impacts related to the project’s construction emissions would be significant if these emissions exceeded the following thresholds: . 54 pounds per day of ROG . 54 pounds per day of NOX . 82 pounds per day of PM10 (exhaust) . 54 pounds per day of PM2.5 (exhaust)

Operational Emissions. Impacts from the project’s direct and/or indirect operational emissions would be significant if they exceeded the following daily or the annual emissions thresholds: . 54 pounds per day of ROG . 54 pounds per day of NOX

Environmental Impact Report 67 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

. 82 pounds per day of PM10 . 54 pounds per day of PM2.5

Direct operational emissions are emitted on a site and include emissions from stationary sources and on-site mobile equipment, if applicable. Examples of land uses and activities that generate direct emissions are industrial operations and sources subject to an operating permit by the BAAQMD. Indirect operational emissions come from mobile sources that access the project site, but generally are emitted off-site. For many types of land development projects, the principal source of air pollutant emissions is the motor vehicle trips generated by the project. Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations. A project’s indirect CO emissions would be significant if they contribute to a violation of the State standards for CO (9.0 ppm averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm over 1 hour). Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions. Toxic air contaminants (TACs), including fine diesel particulates (PM2.5), can have significant health impacts on local communities. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines sets thresholds applicable to projects that would site new sensitive receptors in proximity to permitted or non-permitted sources of TAC or PM2.5 emissions. If impacts due to emissions of TACs or PM2.5 from any individual source would exceed any of the thresholds listed below, the project would result in a significant impact: . Non-compliance with a Community Risk Reduction Plan . An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million (10E-06), or a non-cancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 from any individual source would be a significant cumulatively considerable contribution . An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) annual average PM2.5 from any individual source would be a significant cumulatively considerable contribution

A project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact if the sum of all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a source, or from the location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, would exceed any of the following thresholds: . Non-compliance with a Community Risk Reduction Plan . An excess cancer risk level of more than 100 in one million (10E-05), which is one order of magnitude higher than the threshold for an individual source, or a chronic non-cancer hazard index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0 3 . 0.8 µg/m annual average PM2.5

Methodology

Construction Emissions. Emissions from construction activity during development of the project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.1. Construction included demolition of the existing building as well as construction of the proposed mixed-use building. Average daily emissions from project construction were calculated, including both on-site and off-site activities. On-site activities would consist of the operation of off-road construction equipment, as well as on-site truck travel (e.g., haul trucks, water trucks, dump trucks, and concrete trucks), whereas off-site sources would be emissions from construction vehicle trips.

68 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality

Operational Emissions. CalEEMod was also used to estimate emissions from the long-term operation of the new residences and parking garage on-site. Since the project would replace existing retail commercial uses with new retail commercial space of similar scale, these operational emissions were removed from the CalEEMod calculations. Operational emissions included mobile source emissions, area source emissions, and emissions from energy use. Mobile source emissions would be generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the project site associated with operation of the project. This analysis used projections of daily project-generated vehicle trips from the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates in June 2017 (see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating. Emissions attributed to energy use include natural gas consumption for space and water heating.

Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations. The BAAQMD recommends a CO “hotspot” analysis for a project if the addition of project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis, no intersections affected by the project would handle more than 44,000 vehicles per hour, so no intersection-specific CO modeling is required (bulk CO emissions are quantified consistent with standard methodologies for BAAQMD as described above).

Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions. The DAP EIR examined possible exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs). In compliance with Mitigation Measure AIR-2 in the DAP EIR, this analysis considers the potential exposure of new residential land uses on- site to TAC sources. Community risk and hazards screening tools from BAAQMD are applied to provide conservative estimates to TAC exposure. If these screening tools indicate that TAC levels may be excessive, the BAAQMD recommends further, more refined analysis, including site-specific dispersion modeling, should be conducted for more accurate (and usually lower) risk and hazard estimates (BAAQMD 2012). The screening tools provide estimates for PM2.5 concentrations, cancer risk, chronic hazard risk, and acute hazard risk from stationary, roadway, and highway sources. The risk and hazard screening analysis process includes the following steps: 1 Identify emissions sources (permitted sources, highways, and major roadways) within 1,000 feet of the project’s fence line using BAAQMD screening tools. If there are no sources within 1,000 feet of the project, then there is no significant impact for risk and hazards and no further analysis is needed. If emissions sources exist within 1,000 feet of the project, proceed to Step 2 to conduct initial conservative screening. 2 If emissions sources are present within 1,000 feet of the project site, conduct initial conservative screening using BAAQMD screening tools, comparing each source’s estimated cancer risk, PM2.5, and hazard values to applicable thresholds. Sum all of the sources’ impacts for comparison to applicable cumulative thresholds. If the risk and hazard estimates for an individual source and/or the cumulative impacts are below BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, then there is no significant impact for risk and hazards and no further analysis is needed. If thresholds are exceeded, then proceed to Step 3 to conduct advanced screening for more refined estimates. 3 If emissions sources present within 1,000 feet of the project site have risk and hazards above BAAQMD thresholds using the method described in Step 2, conduct advanced screening for more refined estimates. To refine estimates, scale highway and roadway risk and PM2.5 values to reflect actual traffic and distances from the project using BAAQMD methods from the Modeling Report (BAAQMD 2012). If the refined risk and

Environmental Impact Report 69 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

hazard estimates are below applicable thresholds, then there is no significant impact for risk and hazards and no further analysis is needed. If thresholds are exceeded, then proceed to Step 4 to conduct refined modeling analysis. 4 If emissions sources present within 1,000 feet of the project site have refined risk and hazards estimates above BAAQMD thresholds as determined in Step 3, conduct refined modeling analysis. For highways and major roadways, use local traffic and meteorology data to model risk and hazards using BAAQMD methods from the Modeling Report (BAAQMD 2012). If the risk and hazard estimates with refined modeling are below thresholds, then there is no significant impact for risk and hazards and no further analysis is needed. If thresholds are exceeded, then risk reduction strategies should be implemented.

Consistency with Clean Air Plan. To date, BAAQMD‘s most current air quality plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The consistency analysis should evaluate whether the project is consistent with the goals, control measures, and strategies outlined in the CAP. If the project is consistent with these components, it would be considered consistent with the CAP. The CAP focuses on two main goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale, the CAP strategies focus on attaining all state and national air quality standards as well as eliminating disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from TACs. To protect the climate, the CAP strategies focus on reducing Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The CAP defines an integrated, multi-pollutant control strategy with 85 specific control measures. BAAQMD encourages project developers and lead agencies to incorporate these measures into project designs and plan elements. If approval of a project would not cause the disruption, delay, or otherwise hinder the implementation of any air quality plan control measure, it would be considered consistent with the CAP. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Thresholds 2 and 3 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. Impact AIR-1 Project construction would generate increases in localized air pollutant emissions. While these emissions may result in temporary adverse impacts to local air quality, they would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Nevertheless, the project would be required to comply with BAAQMD regulations and Mitigation Measure AIR-3 from the DAP EIR to minimize emissions that could pose a health and nuisance impact to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant with mitigation. Demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed project would generate temporary emissions from three primary sources: the operation of construction vehicles (e.g., scrapers, loaders, and dump trucks); ground disturbance during clearing and grading, which creates fugitive dust; and the application of asphalt, paint, or other oil-based

70 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality substances. The extent of daily emissions, particularly reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions, generated by construction equipment is calculated based on the quantity and type of equipment used and the hours of operation for each phase of construction. The extent of fugitive dust (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions is calculated based upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) whether transporting excavated materials offsite is necessary. The amount of ROG emissions generated by paints and oil-based substances such as asphalt is calculated based on the type and amount of material utilized. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2016.3.1) was used to estimate air pollutant emissions associated with project construction, which was estimated to begin in December 2017 and end in April 2020 based on the client’s preliminary construction schedule and model defaults. Demolition of 38,700 square feet of existing structures would occur first, followed by site preparation, grading, construction, architectural coating, and paving. Architectural coating was assumed to begin approximately halfway during construction, consistent with standard construction schedules. The client also provided a list of construction equipment by phase, which was included in the model inputs. Construction activities would result in temporary air quality impacts that may vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Watering was assumed to occur twice daily in CalEEMod, which is recommended by the BAAQMD as a basic construction mitigation measure for all projects and required by Mitigation Measure AIR-3 from the DAP EIR. Construction equipment that would generate criteria air pollutants includes excavators and graders. Since electrically-powered equipment would not result in criteria pollutant or ozone precursor emissions, the analysis conservatively assumes that all construction equipment would be diesel-powered as a maximum-reasonable-case assumption for emissions from project construction activity. Table 10 summarizes the estimated maximum daily construction emissions that would occur due to the project. The maximum daily emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD project- level thresholds for construction. Therefore, construction would not generate adverse levels of criteria air pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors such as Berkeley City College and Berkeley High School, and impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation from the DAP EIR.

Table 10 Construction Emissions Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions Significance Threshold Significant Impact? ROG 13.6 54 No

NOX 46.0 54 No

PM10 (exhaust) 1.1 82 No

PM10 (total) 4.0 N/A N/A

PM2.5 (exhaust) 1.1 54 No

PM2.5 (total) 2.4 N/A N/A See Appendix 3 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist, for CalEEMod worksheets. For a conservative estimate, winter emissions were used. Watering twice daily was included in CalEEMod, following BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Project (BAAQMD 2011) and DAP EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-3. See mitigated construction results.

Environmental Impact Report 71 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

MITIGATION MEASURES Although construction emissions would be below BAAQMD project-level thresholds, Mitigation Measure AIR-3 from the DAP EIR would be required to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 construction emissions that could pose a health and nuisance impact to nearby sensitive land uses. This mitigation measure would reduce PM10 emissions through dust control measures including watering of all active construction areas at least twice daily and sweeping all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas daily. PM2.5 would be reduced by implementing construction equipment standards and requiring signage posted at construction sites indicating that diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes be turned off. Construction emissions estimated in CalEEMod included watering twice daily, which follows BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects (BAAQMD 2011) as well as a basic requirement of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 from the DAP EIR. As shown in Table 10, construction-related emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds with this mitigation incorporated.

Significance After Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 from the DAP EIR would reduce air quality impacts from construction activity beyond the construction emission values listed in Table 10 Sensitive receptors, including students, would not be exposed to substantial construction-related toxins that would negatively impact health. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with temporary construction activities would be less than significant. Thresholds 2 and 3 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. Impact AIR-2 Air pollutant emissions generated from operation of the project would not exceed BAAQMD operational significance thresholds. Therefore, long-term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant. Operational emissions include mobile source emissions, which are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the project site. Mobile source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod based on vehicle trips rates from the Transportation Impact Analysis. Other operational emissions include energy use (such as natural gas combustion) and area sources such as landscaping equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. The proposed building is required to achieve a LEED Gold (or equivalent) rating pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23E.68.085. Achieving this standard would entail the use of sustainable design features including measure to conserve energy and water and divert waste. The building would also be required to meet the 2016 Title 24 requirement, which would exceed 2013 standards by 28 percent for residential projects. Overall water use would be reduced by 40 percent indoors, and water for landscaping would be reduced by 50 percent, as discussed in the project description. The project would also be required to comply with Alameda County’s 75 percent waste diversion rate, which is 50 percent above that required by AB 939. The modeling in CalEEMod accounted for these project features.

72 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality

Table 11 summarizes the project’s estimated daily operational emissions. The maximum daily emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD project-level thresholds for operation. Therefore, operation of the project would not generate adverse levels of air pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors such as Berkeley City College and Berkeley High School, and operational emissions would be less than significant.

Table 11 Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions Significance Threshold Significant Impact? ROG 6.6 54 No

NOx 5.4 54 No

PM10 2.3 82 No

PM2.5 0.8 54 No See Appendix 3 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist, for CalEEMod worksheets. For a conservative estimate, winter emissions were used except for ROG, which had higher emissions in the summer.

MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. Threshold 4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impact AIR-3 The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Based on a conservative screening analysis following BAAQMD methodology, on-site sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial levels of TACs that would significantly impact human health. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Certain population groups are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases. Residential uses are also considered more sensitive to air pollution than non-residential uses because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Although the project’s retail commercial uses would not involve the type of commercial or industrial uses that are known to emit substantial quantities of TACs, nearby permitted sources may pose potential health risks. For example, permitted sources may include diesel back-up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, and auto spray booths. Five permitted sources within 1,000 feet of the project site were identified using BAAQMD’s Alameda County Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis, Shattuck Avenue is the busiest road in the vicinity of the project site. As shown in Table 25 in Section 4.4, Noise and Vibration, the maximum existing peak-hour trips is 2,088, on the segment of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and Allston Way. Daily trips can be converted from peak hour trips by multiplying by a factor of 10, which is a typical multiplier used to estimate daily trips based on peak-hour trips. This would mean that the maximum daily trips along Shattuck Avenue would be an estimated 18,920. This road segment has less than the minimum average daily traffic volume (20,000 trips) to be categorized as a major roadway for the purpose of a TAC screening analysis. No other potential major roadways were identified, and no highways are located within 1,000

Environmental Impact Report 73 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project feet of the site. Table 12 lists the permitted sources and shows the adjusted cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration using BAAQMD distance multiplier tools. As shown in Table 12, the BAAQMD individual source screening threshold and cumulative screening threshold are not exceeded.

Table 12 Screening Data for Stationary Sources (within 1,000 feet of project site)

PM2.5 BAAQMD Distance to Site Cancer Risk Concentration Source ID Type (feet) (in 1 million) (µg/m3) 17864 Generator1 320 0.21 0.000 G70 Carwash2 420 1.07 * 13451 Generator1 640 6.04 0.011 19070 Generator1 750 0.95 0.000 12293 Facilities Services 850 0.00 0.003 Combined Total 8.27 0.014 BAAQMD Individual Source Screening Threshold 10 0.3 Individual Threshold Exceeded? No No BAAQMD Cumulative Screening Threshold 100 0.8 Cumulative Threshold Exceeded? No No Source: BAAQMD’s Alameda County Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. * No data available. 1 Cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration were adjusted using the Internal Combustion (IC) Engine Distance Multiplier Tool. 2 Cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration were adjusted in the BAAQMD Gasoline Dispensing Facility (GDF) Engine Distance Multiplier Tool.

It should be noted that the risk and hazard impacts in the BAAQMD’s screening tools are based on reasonable worst-case scenarios to determine whether or not a refined modeling analysis is required. The calculations used in the screening analysis do not include source- specific exhaust information such as stack height, exhaust gas exit velocity, exhaust gas temperature, nor do they account for actual distances from receptors. A more refined analysis using source-specific exhaust parameters, site-specific meteorological data, site- specific building dimensions and locations, and actual location of source and receptors would be expected to result in lower and more accurate values than the conservative values from the screening tools (BAAQMD 2011). Thus, this is a conservative approach to determination of potential impacts related to TACs. Therefore, based on a conservative screening analysis following BAAQMD methodology, as shown in Table 12, on-site sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial levels of TACs that would significantly impact human health. Buffering and air filtrations systems recommended by Mitigation Measure AIR-2 from the DAP EIR for projects located near TAC sources would be not necessary since the impact would be less than significant without mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures required. Threshold 1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

74 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality

Impact AIR-4 The project would contribute to population growth but would be consistent with the growth assumptions in the BAAQMD’s current 2017 Clean Air Plan. This impact would be less than significant. The California Clean Air Act requires that air districts create a Clean Air Plan (CAP) that describes how the jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. These plans must be updated every three years. The most recently adopted air quality plan in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP is a roadmap showing how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the State one-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The 2017 CAP does not include control measures that apply directly to individual development projects; instead, the control strategy includes stationary-source control measures to be implemented through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations; mobile-source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2017 CAP also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the state one-hour ozone standard. In this, the 2017 CAP replaces the 2010 CAP. Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with the most recently adopted CAP should demonstrate that a project: . Supports the primary goals of the CAP; . Includes applicable control measures from the CAP; and . Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any CAP control measures.

Support the Primary Goals of the CAP

The primary goals of the 2017 CAP are to: . Protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale; and . Protect the climate.

Any project that would not support these goals would not be considered consistent with the 2017 CAP. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the CAP goals. Approval of the project would not result in significant and unavoidable criteria pollutant emissions or other significant air quality impacts. The DAP EIR identified impacts related to CAP consistency as significant and unavoidable, due to the large scale of development, which would increase population and employment at a greater rate than assumed in the then-current 1991 CAP. As discussed in the Population and Housing section of the Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A), the project would increase Berkeley’s population by an estimated 573 persons, which would be within the population projections in the DAP EIR. The anticipated population growth associated with the project represents approximately 18 percent of the potential population growth that would result from the DAP, and less than nine percent of the Downtown Area’s projected 2030 population (the nearest year for which population is estimated in the Downtown Area after the project becomes operational).The project is designated as Downtown in the City of Berkeley General Plan, which is considered appropriate for mixed-use commercial and residential buildings. The project site is zoned Commercial Downtown Mixed Use District (C-DMU). The project would be consistent with these existing land use and zoning designations, indicating that the project represents

Environmental Impact Report 75 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project anticipated growth under the inventory and assumptions of the General Plan and the 2017 CAP. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2017 CAP.

Include Applicable CAP Control Strategies The Bay Area 2017 CAP contains 85 control strategies aimed at reducing air pollution and protecting the climate in the Bay Area. For consistency with climate planning efforts at the state level, the control strategies in the CAP are based on the same economic sector framework used by CARB, which encompass stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and super- GHG pollutants. Table 13 identifies applicable control measures and correlates it to specific elements of the project.

Table 13 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures

Control Measures Consistency

Transportation

TR2: Trip Reduction Programs. Consistent: The project would establish a Transportation Demand Implement the regional Commuter Management (TDM) program that would reduce vehicle trips, Benefits Program (Rule 14-1) that which would include: requires employers with 50 or more Bay . Unbundled parking (parking that is leased separately from Area employees to provide commuter dwelling units); benefits. Encourage trip reduction . AC Transit passes for each residential household and every policies and programs in local plans, commercial employee; e.g., general and specific plans while . Five car share parking spaces; providing grants to support trip reduction . Four dedicated electric vehicle charging areas; and efforts. Encourage local governments to require mitigation of vehicle travel as part . 100 secure bicycle parking spaces. of new development approval, to adopt The project also would encourage transit use by locating new transit benefits ordinances in order to residences adjacent to the Downtown Berkeley BART station. reduce transit costs to employees, and to develop innovative ways to encourage rideshare, transit, cycling, and walking for work trips. Fund various employer- based trip reduction programs.

TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Consistent: The project would provide 100 secure bicycle parking and Facilities. Encourage planning for spaces. In addition, improvements within and facing the public bicycle and pedestrian facilities in local right-of-way may include seating and other pedestrian amenities plans, e.g., general and specific plans, at the BART Plaza, in coordination with planned BART fund bike lanes, routes, paths and improvements at that site; an Art Walk with glass display cases on bicycle parking facilities. the Allston Way storefront; enhanced stone paving on the sidewalk, planted trees, and bike racks; a plaza at the corner of Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, with stone paving, trees, planters, and benches; and a Community Art Space adjacent to the building lobby.

TR11: Value Pricing. Implement and/or Consistent: The project would provide the required parking per consider various value pricing strategies. City requirements for the residences and the retail commercial space. The project would also include unbundled parking (parking that is leased separately from dwelling units), five car share parking spaces, four dedicated electric vehicle charging areas, and 100 secure bicycle parking spaces.

76 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality

Control Measures Consistency

TR13: Parking Policies. Encourage Consistent: The project would provide the required parking per parking policies and programs in local City requirements for the residences and the retail commercial plans, e.g., reduce minimum parking space. The project would also include unbundled parking (parking requirements; limit the supply of off- that is leased separately from dwelling units), five car share street parking in transit-oriented areas; parking spaces, four dedicated electric vehicle charging areas, unbundle the price of parking spaces; and 100 secure bicycle parking spaces. support implementation of demand- based pricing (such as “SF Park”) in high-traffic areas.

Energy

EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand. Consistent: The project would conserve energy by establishing: Work with local governments to adopt . LEED Gold certification or attain an equivalent building additional energy-efficiency policies and performance (as determined by the Zoning Officer); programs. Support local government . Roof gardens to reduce heat with flow through planters to energy efficiency program via best reduce heat island effect and capture water; practices, model ordinances, and . Rooftop solar photovoltaic panels; technical support. Work with partners to . Hot water generated by solar thermal power; develop messaging to decrease . Solar shading for residential units; electricity demand during peak times. . Low emissivity glass to minimize need for building cooling; and . Installation of drought-tolerant plants and materials. Under State law, all appliances that are purchased for the project - both pre- and post-development – would be consistent with energy efficiency standards that are in effect at the time of manufacture. In addition, the project would be required to comply with all energy standards of Title 24 that are in effect at the time of development. The 2016 Title 24 standards are approximately 28% more efficient than the 2013 standards. The 2013 Title 24 standards are approximately 30% more efficient than the 2008 standards, which in turn are approximately 15% more efficient than the 2005 standards.

Buildings

BL1: Green Buildings. Collaborate with Consistent: The project would include green building features, partners such as KyotoUSA to identify such as: energy-related improvements and . LEED Gold or equivalent environmental conformance; opportunities for on-site renewable . Roof gardens with flow through planters to reduce heat island energy systems in school districts; effect and capture water; investigate funding strategies to . implement upgrades. Identify barriers to Solar shading for residential units; and effective local implementation of the . Rooftop solar panels for hot water and electric power CALGreen (Title 24) statewide building generation. energy code; develop solutions to Under State law, all appliances that are purchased for the project improve implementation/enforcement. - both pre- and post-development – would be consistent with Work with ABAG’s BayREN program to energy efficiency standards that are in effect at the time of make additional funding available for manufacture. In addition, the project would be required to comply energy-related projects in the buildings with all energy standards of Title 24 that are in effect at the time of sector. Engage with additional partners development. The 2016 Title 24 standards are approximately 28% to target reducing emissions from more efficient than the 2013 standards. The 2013 Title 24 specific types of buildings. standards are approximately 30% more efficient than the 2008 standards, which in turn are approximately 15% more efficient than the 2005 standards.

Environmental Impact Report 77 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Control Measures Consistency

Water Control Measures

WR2: Support Water Conservation. Consistent: The project would reduce overall water use by 40 Develop a list of best practices that percent indoors and would reduce water for landscaping by 50 reduce water consumption and increase percent to achieve LEED Gold (or equivalent) rating. on-site water recycling in new and existing buildings; incorporate into local planning guidance.

Table 13 shows that the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any CAP control measures. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the applicable Control Strategies contained in the 2017 CAP for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

Hinder Implementation of CAP Control Measures The project would be required to be consistent with BAAQMD rules and regulations, including dust and diesel particulate matter reduction measures which were included in Mitigation Measures AIR-3 in the DAP EIR, and would not otherwise cause the disruption, delay or otherwise hinder the implementation of any air quality plan control measure. The project would not preclude any planned transit or bike pathways, and would not otherwise disrupt regional planning efforts to reduce VMT and meet federal and State air quality standards. Impacts would be within those identified in the DAP EIR for the Plan as a whole and would be less than significant for the project.

MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts According to BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, an air quality plan refers to clean air plans, state implementation plans (SIPS), ozone plans, and other potential air quality plans developed by BAAQMD. To date, BAAQMD‘s most current air quality plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As described above, the project would be required to comply with basic and optional control measures in the CAP, which would reduce air pollution resulting from construction activities. The project would not result in long-term emissions which exceed BAAQMD’s operational emissions thresholds. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with or obstruct continued implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which means that the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality, according to BAAQMD guidance for Clean Air Plan consistency. Therefore, cumulative impacts to air quality would be less than significant.

78 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

4.2 Cultural Resources

The analysis in this section has been prepared in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and considers potential impacts to historic resources. The discussion of historic resources summarizes information from a Historic Resources Technical Report prepared for the project by Architectural Resources Group, Inc. in December 2016. This report is included in its entirety in Appendix C of this EIR. Setting Downtown Berkeley Berkeley’s development into a thriving town is largely credited to the extension of transportation routes in the East Bay and the establishment of UC Berkeley in 1868. Francis Kittredge Shattuck, a notable business and civic leader, played a prominent role in extending a Central Pacific (later Southern Pacific) spur line from Oakland to Berkeley in 1876. The line ran along present‐day Shattuck Avenue. The increased transportation brought commercial growth and a downtown area began to develop. At the time of Berkeley’s incorporation in 1878, Shattuck Avenue was already established as the town’s principal commercial area. The bulk of construction in Berkeley’s downtown area occurred between the late 1870s, and the 1930s, when the pace of building construction diminished due to the Great Depression and other economic pressures (Berkeley 2015a). Many of the nineteenth‐ century, wood‐frame buildings in the Downtown were replaced in the early twentieth century by more substantial masonry buildings.. Downtown Berkeley has an existing and proposed historic district—the Civic Center Historical District and the Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District, respectively. The Civic Center Historic District includes the block bounded by Milvia Street to the east, M.L. King Jr. Way to the west, Center Street to the north and Allston Way to the south, as well as adjacent buildings of historic import, such as the Berkeley Community Theater, the Alameda County Berkeley Courthouse, and the Berkeley Historical Society buildings (Berkeley 2013). The proposed Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District includes areas alongside Shattuck Avenue between University Avenue to the north and Durant Avenue to the south. A Berkeley-commissioned survey completed in 2015 delineates the proposed boundaries of the proposed district, characterizes its historical significance, and identifies significant architectural examples contained within its boundaries, which include a number of buildings for each decade from the 1890s to the 1950s (Berkeley 2015a). The City has not formally adopted this proposed historic district. Site History and Context 2190 Shattuck Avenue is located in Downtown Berkeley on the block bounded by Allston Way to the south, Center Street to the north, Shattuck Avenue to the east, and Milvia Street to the west). The project site lies within the boundaries of the proposed Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District. Table 14 identifies the seven buildings in the vicinity of the project site that contribute to this historic district, in geographic order from north to south:

Environmental Impact Report 79 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Table 14 Contributors to Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District in Vicinity of Project Site Building Address Roy O. Long Co. Building 2120 Shattuck Avenue Chamber of Commerce Building 2140 Shattuck Avenue Wright Block 2161 Shattuck Avenue F.W. Foss Co. Building 2177 Shattuck Avenue Shattuck Hotel 2160 Shattuck Avenue Radston’s Stationery 2225 Shattuck Avenue Brooks Apartment 2231 Shattuck Avenue Source: ARG 2016; see Appendix C, Figure 4.

One contributor to the historic district, the five-story Shattuck Hotel, is located adjacent to the project site, across Allston Way to the south. This hotel was one of the first reinforced concrete structures built in the Downtown Area, and it remains one of the few historic buildings in Downtown Berkeley designed in the Mission Revival style (Berkeley 2015b). The hotel comprises four stories of hotel rooms over ground-floor retail and commercial spaces, with the principal retail frontage facing Shattuck Avenue and the hotel lobby entrance facing Allston Way. The Shattuck Hotel’s eastern façade is distinguished by four square towers topped by pyramidal hipped roofs. Red clay tiles clad the roof and parapet surfaces. The northern elevation, facing the project site, has three squared towers, with the central tower rising higher than the other two. Like the Shattuck elevation, the fifth-floor windows are arched and the fourth-and fifth-floor windows of the three central bays are connected vertically by molded frames and recessed spandrel panels. At the two end towers, the (non-arched) fifth-floor windows are joined by a decorative swag ornament, and a relief frieze elaborates the wall surface below the eave line of each tower. Decorative tile and plaster work, arched windows, and a shallow overhang now adorn the second-story wall face above this entrance (the tile, plasterwork, and arched window openings are original). Property Description The project site is occupied by a two-story commercial building completed in 1958 for the J.C. Penney Company. The building was operated by J.C. Penney until 1992, when it was converted to a Ross Dress for Less store. Since 2011, the building has been occupied by a Walgreens pharmacy on the first floor and offices on the second floor. The building is slightly trapezoidal in form with a flat roof. When completed in 1958, the property was clad with a green tile veneer at the ground level and a brick veneer at the second story. The windowless second story featured prominent J.C. Penney Co. signage along the Shattuck Avenue façade. The store was accessed via a recessed entrance in the center of the Shattuck Avenue façade. Figure 21 depicts a photo of the property during its operation as a J.C. Penney store in 1962. The building has undergone substantial alteration since its initial construction. Today, the building’s first floor is clad in smooth stucco and features full‐height glass and black aluminum‐framed storefront windows along the Shattuck Avenue (east) façade and the eastern half of the Allston Way (south) façade. A recessed entry consisting of two sets of glazed, paired entry doors is located at the southern end of the Shattuck Avenue façade. A secondary entrance (2075 Allston Way) with one set of paired entry doors and fixed plate glass windows is located near the western end of the south façade. A metal roll‐up door and a single metal swing door are located at the building’s southwest and northeast corners.

80 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

The second story is clad in variegated brick veneer that is divided into vertically‐oriented panels. Several openings have been cut into this originally windowless brick veneer to accommodate metal window systems. The southeast corner of the second story is marked by a multi‐panel colored glass steel framed unit that surrounds the corner windows and projects slightly from the building façades. A similar multi‐panel steel framed unit with colored glass surrounds the second‐story window above the 2075 Allston Way entrance. Figure 3 in Section 2, Project Description, depicts photos of the existing building.

Figure 21 Historic Site Photograph

Historic View of Project Site from November 1962, Looking Northwest from Shattuck Avenue Source: ARG 2016; see Appendix C

Architect The building was designed by Robert B. Liles, AIA (1909-1987), who received commissions for large commercial buildings and malls throughout California, including the Novato Fair Shopping Center, a 350,000 square-foot Redding Mall in Shasta County, and a number of other J.C. Penney department stores in Northern California. His firm, Robert Liles, Inc., operated out of San Francisco and Oakland. Liles was elected president of the East Bay Chapter of the American Institute of Architects in 1967. Regulatory Setting A property may be designated as historic by national, state, or local authorities. In order for a building to qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or as a locally significant property in the

Environmental Impact Report 81 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

City of Berkeley, it must meet one or more identified criteria of significance. The property must also retain sufficient architectural integrity to continue to evoke the sense of place and time with which it is historically associated. An explanation of these designations follows.

Federal

National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was established by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment" (CFR 36 CFR 60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past; Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

According to the NRHP guidelines, the essential physical features of a property must be present for it to convey its significance. Furthermore, in order to qualify for the NRHP, a resource must retain its integrity, or the “ability to convey its significance.” The seven aspects of integrity are: 1. Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred); 2. Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property); 3. Setting (the physical environment of a historic property); 4. Materials (the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property); 5. Workmanship (the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory); 6. Feeling (a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time); and, 7. Association (the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property). (National Park Service 2002)

82 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

The relevant aspects of integrity depend upon the NRHP criteria applied to the property. For example, a property nominated under Criterion A (events) would be likely to convey its significance primarily through integrity of location, setting, and association. A property nominated solely under Criterion C (design) would usually rely primarily on integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. The California Register procedures, described below, include similar language with regard to integrity.

State

California Register of Historic Resources CEQA (Section 21084.1) requires that a lead agency determine whether a project could have a significant effect on historical resources. An historical resource is one listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Section 21084.1), a resource included in a local register of historical resources (Section 15064.5[a][2]), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (Section 15064.5[a][3]). PRC Section 5024.1, Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 were used as the basic guidelines for this cultural resources study. PRC Section 5024.1 requires an evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The purpose of the register is to maintain listings of the state’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change. The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP, enumerated below. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it: 1) retains substantial integrity, and 2) meets at least one of the following California Register criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The CRHR may also include properties listed in “local registers” of historic properties. A “local register of historic resources” is broadly defined in Section 5020.1(k) as “a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.” Local registers of historic properties come in two forms: (1) surveys of historic resources conducted by a local agency in accordance with Office of Historic Preservation procedures and standards, adopted by the local agency and maintained as current; and, (2) landmarks designated under local ordinances or resolutions (PRC Sections 5024.1, 21804.1, 15064.5). By definition, the CRHR also includes all “properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places,” and certain specified State Historical Landmarks. The majority of formal determinations of NRHP eligibility occur when properties are evaluated by the State Office of Historic Preservation in connection with federal environmental review procedures (Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 106). Formal

Environmental Impact Report 83 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project determinations of eligibility also occur when properties are nominated to the NRHP, but are not listed due to owner objection. The minimum age criterion for the NRHP and the CRHR is 50 years. Properties less than 50 years old may be eligible for listing on the NRHP if they can be regarded as “exceptional,” as defined by the NRHP procedures, or in terms of the CRHR, if “it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance” [Chapter 11, Title 14, §4842(d)(2)].

City of Berkeley

Landmarks Preservation Ordinance Berkeley’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) was enacted in 1974 and is set forth in Chapter 3.24 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. The LPO authorized the creation of a Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to implement the ordinance, which sought to protect historically and/or architecturally significant sites, structures, or areas. The ordinance authorizes the LPC to designate properties as Landmarks, Structures of Merit, or Historic Districts and gives it regulatory power over designated properties. The criteria for designation are as follows: A. Landmarks and historic districts. General criteria which the commission shall use when considering structures, sites and areas for landmark or historic district designation are as follows: 1. Architectural merit: a) Property that is the first, last, only or most significant architectural property of its type in the region; b) Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works of the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer or master builder; or c) Architectural examples worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric.

2. Cultural value: Structures, sites and areas associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social and economic developments of the City; 3. Educational value: Structures worth preserving for their usefulness as an educational force; 4. Historic value: Preservation and enhancement of structures, sites and areas that embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County/California/United States. History may be social, cultural, economic, political, religious or military; 5. Any property which is listed on the National Register described in Section 470A of Title 16 of the United States Code. B. Structures of merit. Criteria which the commission shall use when considering structure for structure of merit designation are as follows: 1. General criteria shall be architectural merit and/or cultural, educational, or historic interest or value. If upon assessment of a structure, the commission finds

84 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

that the structure does not currently meet the criteria as set out for a landmark, but it is worthy of preservation as part of a neighborhood, a block or a street frontage, or as part of a group of buildings which includes landmarks, that structure may be designated a structure of merit. 2. Specific criteria include, but are not limited to one or more of the following: a) The age of the structure is contemporary with (1) a designated landmark within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings, or (2) an historic period or event of significance to the City, or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings. b) The structure is compatible in size, scale, style, materials or design with a designated landmark structure within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings. c) The structure is a good example of architectural design. d) The structure has historical significance to the City and/or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings. (Ord. 5686‐NS § 1 (part), 1985: Ord. 4694‐NS § 3.1, 1974)

Berkeley General Plan The City’s General Plan (2003) sets policies related to the protection of historic buildings and to blocking important views in the City toward landmarks, including the following. Policy LU-2 Preservation. Protect Berkeley’s character by identifying, restoring, and preserving historic buildings. Policy UD-16 Context. The design and scale of new or remodeled buildings should respect the built environment in the area, particularly where the character of the built environment is largely defined by an aggregation of historically and architecturally significant buildings. Policy UD‐31 Views. Construction should avoid blocking significant views, especially ones toward the Bay, the hills, and significant landmarks such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island. Whenever possible, new buildings should enhance a vista or punctuate or clarify the urban pattern.

Downtown Area Plan

The Downtown Area Plan (DAP) and the Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines provide guidelines for new development in the downtown area. The Historic Preservation and Urban Design chapter of the DAP establishes the importance of design review for Berkeley’s Downtown as follows (DAP Page HD-1): Policies of the Downtown Area Plan seek to harmonize and balance the goals of preserving and enhancing historic resources, and encouraging new and complementary development. It is fundamental to this Plan that, with appropriate design guidelines and regulations, both goals can be achieved and will complement each other. According to the DAP, the character of new development must be considered through the lens of good urban design and consideration for Downtown’s historic settings. Context – geographic and cultural – presents critical design considerations that help lead to projects that fit the place. In addition, through continued care and investment, historic buildings and good urban design will continue to contribute continuity and character to Downtown’s changing yet principled cityscape.(City of Berkeley 2012)

Environmental Impact Report 85 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Policy LU‐4.2 in the DAP, which addresses development compatibility, stipulates that “[t]he size and placement of new buildings should: reduce street level shadow, view, and wind impacts to acceptable levels; and maintain compatible relationships with historic resources (such as streetwall continuity in commercial areas).” Policy HD-1.1 in the DAP calls on the City to “[p]reserve historic buildings and sites of Downtown, and provide where appropriate for their adaptive reuse and/or intensification,” and states that, “at a minimum, historic façades should be maintained and/or rehabilitated and the scale and character of additions must be compatible with the historic building.”

Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines The Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and were developed in conjunction with the DAP. Specifically, the Design Guidelines were identified in the DAP EIR as a mitigation measure for Impact CUL-2, which pertains to substantial adverse changes in character- defining features in portions of the Downtown Area that have the potential for future designation as historic districts. Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines relevant to the proposed project include the following: . Reflect and reinforce the scale, massing, proportions, rhythm and attention to detailing which are established by the façades of Landmark and Significant buildings. (Design Guideline 1, page 27) . Incorporate elements which break up façade planes and create a visual play of light and shadow. Avoid long, uninterrupted horizontal surfaces. Consider the use of bay windows, balconies and architectural projections. (Design Guideline 31, page 27) . Vertical divisions of ground and upper floors should be consistent. Generally maintain a cornice that projects horizontally between the ground floor (and its mezzanines) and upper stories. Align the cornice and other horizontal ground floor elements (like awnings and sign bands) with similar features on neighboring buildings and storefronts, if feasible. (Design Guideline 4, page 27) . Articulate side and rear façades in a manner compatible with the design of the front façade. Avoid large blank wall surfaces on side and rear façades which are visible from public areas. In these locations, display windows, store entrances, and upper windows are encouraged. When this is not feasible, consider the use of ornament, murals, or landscaping along large blank walls. (Design Guideline 8, page 28) . The façades of Downtown’s historic buildings are comprised of load‐bearing walls and frames, the limits of which give similar scale and expression. Maintain the typical rhythm of structural bays and enframed storefronts of 15‐30 feet spacing at ground level, in order to enhance visual continuity with existing buildings and pedestrian scale. Curtain walls, if used, should be designed with rhythm, patterns and modulation to be visually interesting. (Design Guideline 7, page 28) . Windows should comprise 25‐50% of upper façades visible from public areas, and should reflect the rhythm, scale, proportion, and detailing of upper windows of Landmark and Significant buildings. (Design Guideline 13, page 29) . Frame windows and use light shelves and other articulation to emulate the rhythm, scale, and reveal (shadow) of traditional buildings. (Design Guideline 20, page 30)

86 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

. Buildings should frame and define the street as an active public space. Throughout Downtown, buildings are typically built to street‐facing property line(s). This historic ‘streetwall’ of façades should be preserved, and extended through new construction. (Section Introduction, page 57) . Maintain a continuous zero‐setback ‘build‐to line’ at the ground floor at the edge of all Downtown streets where commercial and higher levels of activity is anticipated….The only exceptions to this may be to: provide suitably defined, usable open space; create a special corner feature; provide recessed storefront entrances; create an arcade; to provide a narrow band of landscaping…; or to give emphasis to a civic building. (Design Guideline 1, page 57)

The Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines explicitly allow for supplemental guidelines through other planning documents to provide more specific guidance for geographic subareas, such as the subareas where historic resources are concentrated encompassed by the DAP. The Design Guidelines reference the DAP EIR for additional discussion on “character-defining features” in the Downtown Area. Therefore, in addition to the Guidelines listed above, the DAP EIR included the following Design Guidelines in Mitigation Measure CUL-2 to supplement the Design Guidelines and to ensure that new construction respects the authentic character, significance and integrity of the existing building stock in areas that may have the potential for designation as historic districts: . Consider the difference in character of individual blocks. The scale of buildings change within the potential historic district(s) and new construction should reflect the appropriate scale per block. . Priorities for new construction and additions include: build-to-the-street, particularly at corners; construct infill buildings at vacant or underutilized sites along major streets; and modify non-historic buildings so that they contribute visual interest and quality. . Construct new buildings of compatible design with the surrounding neighborhood. . Encourage creative and innovative contemporary designs for new buildings Downtown. . Streetscape plays an important role in drawing individuals to a particular area of the city. Use signage, lighting, and paving to improve the pedestrian experience. . Build consistently with the street wall, particularly at corner sites. Continue dominant rhythms for structural bays, bay windows, large pilasters, and other repeating vertical elements. Also, continue dominant cornice lines, such as between ground floors and upper stories, and at the top of façades that meet a street. . Design new buildings to respond to the existing building context within a block, and provide continuity to the overall streetscape. Frequently, a new building will be inserted on a site between two existing buildings of disparate scale and design. . Set back upper floors where taller buildings are permitted, so that dominant roof and cornice lines remain generally consistent in Downtown, as seen from the street. . Explore options for multi-use buildings, combining residential, commercial, and other compatible uses where appropriate. . Provide multi-tenant retail space and other active publically-accessible uses at the street level. These should be accessible directly from the sidewalk, rather than through common interior lobbies.

Environmental Impact Report 87 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

. Provide easy-to-locate building entrances on all street-facing façades. Where a building extends through an entire block or is located at a corner, connect its entrances with a suitably scaled public lobby. Highlight entrances with signage and lighting to distinguish them from storefronts. . Use vertically-proportioned windows. Group such windows in sets where a horizontally proportioned window opening is desired, especially for the expression of structural bays.

As a result of the DAP EIR Mitigation CUL-2, the Downtown Design Guidelines were updated to include a section addressing “Subareas Where Historic Resources Are Concentrated,” consistent with the above guidelines. In addition, Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standard 9 explains that new construction must be distinct from, yet consistent with, the design of adjacent historic resources:

9. 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. Views from the University of California As discussed in Section 1.0, Introduction, community members have raised concerns regarding potential impacts to views from the UC Berkeley campus, and specifically the westward view from UC Berkeley’s Campanile Way. Although view impacts are normally considered in the Aesthetics section of an EIR, the aesthetic impacts of this project may not be considered significant impacts on the environment pursuant to Senate Bill 743, which applies to mixed-use projects on an infill site in a transit priority area. Therefore, this section addresses view impacts only to the extent that they relate to potentially significant impacts to historic resources on the UC Berkeley campus; all other view impacts are discussed in the informational aesthetics discussion in Appendix 2 within Appendix A to this EIR, the Infill Environmental Checklist. In 2004, the University of California, Berkeley completed a Landscape Heritage Plan, which “examines the key characteristics of the [Campus’s] historic Classical Core and provides guidance for its continued development in a manner that respects and builds upon its unique landscape legacy.” The main body of the Plan is divided into three chapters: Historical Significance (a summary of the historical development and significance of the campus), Implementation Concepts (a summary of the cultural landscape assessment process), and Landscape Guidelines (guidelines for site planning and landscape design within the Classical Core). According to the Landscape Heritage Plan, the Classical Core of the UC Berkeley campus is a “cultural landscape.” The Landscape Heritage Plan includes assessment of nine study areas within the Classical Core that include significant and iconic landscape elements on campus: . Campanile Esplanade . Campanile Way . Central Glade Interface . Creek Bridges . Faculty Glade

88 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

. Harmon Way . Mining Circle/Oppenheimer Way . Sather Gate . Sather Road

Campanile Way, one of the study areas, is the pathway that extends approximately ¼-mile west from the Campanile (Sather Tower) through a cluster of beaux-arts, neoclassical era buildings, many of which are designated historical resources. Campanile Way is a contributing element to the cultural landscape. As explained in Section 3 of the Landscape Heritage Plan (“Implementation Concepts”), Campanile Way is a historically significant component of the campus: Developed during the picturesque period, [Campanile Way] was the first centrally located, campus street (from Sather Road eastward). Campanile Way’s strength is its important role as a major pedestrian access in the heart of the Classical Core and its strong visual axis and view, connecting the tower with the Golden Gate. A remnant of an earlier functional era, Campanile Way was re‐confirmed by [John Galen] Howard as a design element of the Classical Core. According to the Landscape Heritage Plan, “Campanile Way’s axial power and historic views to the Campanile and the Golden Gate retain a high level of integrity.” Although Campanile Way is not a designated Berkeley Landmark, east‐west views along Campanile Way are identified in the Landscape Heritage Plan as one of six primary character‐defining features for the Campanile Way and Sather Road environs.

Within this context, it should be noted that the views along Campanile Way are not a fixed character‐defining feature, but have instead changed over time. The Landscape Heritage Plan divides the history of the development of the UC Berkeley campus into three eras: the Picturesque Era (1866‐1900), the Beaux‐Arts Era (1900‐WWII), and the Modern Era (WWII‐ mid‐ 1970s). Not surprisingly, the setting of Campanile Way has changed within and across each of these three eras, with consequent changes to the Way’s associated views. Frederick Law Olmsted’s 1866 Plan for the College of California (UC Berkeley’s predecessor) did not include an east‐west corridor corresponding to today’s Campanile Way. Instead, Olmsted’s picturesque plan was organized around a central east‐west axis that was located further north and passed through the campus’ Central Glade. A Center Street axial path, the predecessor to Campanile Way, first appears on the 1873 UC Berkeley campus plan prepared by engineer and landscape architect William Hammond Hall. That same year, the campus’s first buildings, North and South Halls, were constructed flanking the eastern end of this axis. Bacon Hall was added at the axis’ eastern end in 1881. Around this same time, a flagpole marking the eastern terminus of the Center Street path was installed west of Bacon Hall. This pole served as the “vertical center point” of the campus, as shown in the following historic photograph in Figure 22.

Environmental Impact Report 89 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 22 Historic UC Berkeley Photograph

Historic View of Center Street Path between North and South Halls from 1898, Looking Northeast Source: University of California, Berkeley, 2004

In the first years of the twentieth century, campus architect John Galen Howard implemented a bold Beaux‐Arts plan for the new UC Berkeley campus. This plan reinforced the Central Glade axis, which terminated at the 1902 Hearst Mining Building, and further increased the prominence of the Center Street axis, which became Campanile Way with completion of the Campanile in 1914. The westerly views from Campanile Way to San Francisco Bay were soon framed by Wheeler Hall and Doe Memorial Library, which were both completed in 1917. The Valley Life Sciences Building was added west of the Library in 1930. Other notable developments from this era include the completion of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937, and extensive construction in downtown Berkeley, a portion of which was visible from Campanile Way (e.g., the Berkeley Community Theater located on the Berkeley High School campus). Changes to Campanile Way views during the Modern Era derived from two sources: 1) the addition of new campus buildings, most notably the Doe Library Annex (1950) and Dwinelle Hall (1952), and 2) substantial growth of the trees and associated vegetation that lines the Way. Together these elements have given the westerly views from Campanile Way their current, somewhat confined, configuration. Eligibility of Historic Resources

National and California Registers: Significance, Eligibility, and Integrity Due to substantial alterations, the existing building at 2190 Shattuck Avenue, which was completed in 1958, no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey whatever historic significance it may have possessed (ARG 2016; see Appendix C). Some of the alterations the building has undergone include: . The original green tile veneer at the first story has been removed and replaced with stucco. . All first‐floor window and storefront assemblies have been replaced.

90 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

. The main entrance has been moved to the south end of the Shattuck Avenue façade. . Large windows were added to the Allston Way and Shattuck Avenue elevations of the building’s second story in conjunction with conversion to a Walgreen’s store. . A corner tower structure was added in 1992 in conjunction with conversion of the building to a Ross Dress for Less store. This tower structure was replaced with the current multi‐panel colored glass and steel framed unit in 2011 in conjunction with conversion to a Walgreen’s store.

These extensive modifications to the building’s exterior leave it without integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association, even though the building retains integrity of location and some integrity of setting. The modifications over time have fundamentally altered the building’s character, so that it no longer presents as a mid-century commercial department store. The building’s lack of integrity renders it ineligible for consideration as an individual historical resource or as a contributor to the proposed Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District. This determination provided in ARG’s Historical Resources Technical Report (2016) is consistent with determinations for the building provided in previous reports by JRP Historical Consulting (2005) in conjunction with the East Bay Rapid Transit Project; Archives & Architecture (2015) in conjunction with the Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey; and a Page & Turnbull (2016) assessment for the property. The Page & Turnbull assessment additionally found that the building is not significant for its association with J.C. Penney or architect Robert B. Liles, and is not a representative example of Midcentury Modernism. As a result, Page & Turnbull concluded that “even if the building was restored to its original design and its architectural integrity improved, 2190 Shattuck Avenue would not be found to be a historic resource.” Downtown Area Plan EIR Summary The DAP EIR discusses cultural resources impacts on pages 4-93 through 4-124. The DAP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for historic resources: . Impact CUL-1: Demolition of Historic Resources. Despite the substantial protections in place in City policy and the proposed DAP, it is possible that development anticipated under the DAP could result in the demolition of historic resources located within the Downtown Area. Were demolition of historic resources to occur, this would represent a significant and unavoidable impact associated with DAP implementation.  Demolition of any historic resources within the Downtown Area would represent a significant and unavoidable environmental impact, which could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant. However, should demolition be proposed, a separate, site-specific environmental review would be required, requiring an analysis of alternatives and potential project-specific mitigation measures. . Impact CUL-2: Substantial Adverse Changes in Character-Defining Features in Portions of the Downtown Area that may have the Potential for Future Designation as Historic Districts. Implementation of the DAP may cause substantial adverse changes in the character-defining features of structures in areas within the Downtown Area that may have the potential for future designation as historic districts. Because implementation of the DAP could result in a cumulative impact on the existing character-defining features in those portions of the Downtown Area that

Environmental Impact Report 91 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

may be formally designated as historic districts at some point in the future, any significant adverse change to those features would represent a potentially significant impact.  Mitigation CUL-2: Establish Parameters for Compatible Infill Development in the Downtown Area within Updated Design Guidelines. Using the Secretary of the Interior's “Standards” as a starting point (in compliance with DAP Policy HD-l-la), the Design Guidelines for future development in the Downtown Area should be updated to ensure that new construction respects the authentic character, significance and integrity of the existing building stock in areas that may have the potential for designation as historic districts. Specific guidelines that could be added for this purpose include, but are not limited to, the following: • Consider the difference in character of individual blocks. The scale of buildings change within the potential historic district(s) and new construction should reflect the appropriate scale per block. • Priorities for new construction and additions include: build-to-the-street, particularly at corners; construct infill buildings at vacant or underutilized sites along major streets; and modify non-historic buildings so that they contribute visual interest and quality. • Construct new buildings, of compatible design with the surrounding neighborhood. • Encourage creative and innovative contemporary designs for new buildings in the downtown. • Streetscape plays an important role in drawing individuals to a particular area of the city. Use signage, lighting, and paving to improve the pedestrian experience. • Build consistently with the street wall, particularly at corner sites. Continue dominant rhythms for structural bays, bay windows, large pilasters, and other repeating vertical elements. Also, continue dominant cornice lines, such as between ground floors and upper stories, and at the top of façades that meet a street. • Design new buildings to respond to the existing building context within a block, and provide continuity to the overall streetscape. Frequently, a new building will be inserted on a site between two existing buildings of disparate scale and design. • Set back upper floors where taller buildings are permitted, so that dominant roof and cornice lines remain generally consistent in the Downtown, as seen from the street. • Explore options for multi-use buildings, combining residential, commercial, and other compatible uses where appropriate. • Provide multi-tenant retail space and other active publicly accessible uses at the street level. These should be accessible directly from the sidewalk, rather than through common interior lobbies. • Provide easy-to-locate building entrances on all street-facing façades. Where a building extends through an entire block or is located at a comer, connect its entrances with a suitably scaled public lobby. Highlight entrances with signage and lighting to distinguish them from storefronts. • Use vertically-proportioned windows. Group such windows in sets where a horizontally proportioned window opening is desired, especially for the expression of structural bays.

92 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

As a result of the DAP EIR Mitigation CUL-2, the Downtown Design Guidelines were updated to include a Section addressing Subareas Where Historic Resources Are Concentrated. The DAP EIR discussion under Impact CUL-2 goes on to explain that as individual development projects are proposed in the Downtown Area, those which may have potential adverse effects on historic resources will be evaluated under the Landmark Preservation Ordinance. Project compliance with the provisions of the Landmark Preservation Ordinance, conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (consistent with DAP Policy HD l- la), and consistency with updated Design Guidelines intended to protect the character- defining features of those portions of the Downtown Area which may have the potential for designation as historic districts (as called for in Mitigation CUL-2, above) would reduce potential impacts associated with development that might jeopardize existing character defining features in those areas to a less than significant level. Consistent with the DAP’s conclusion that “should demolition be proposed, a separate, site- specific environmental review would be required, requiring an analysis of alternatives and potential project-specific mitigation measures,” and because the potential impacts of the project as proposed on the on-site and adjacent buildings were not specifically studied in the DAP EIR, specific analysis of the proposed project’s impacts on historic resources is warranted in this EIR. Impact Analysis Methodology and Significance Thresholds According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), “A project with an effect 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.” The CEQA Guidelines broadly define a threshold for determining if the impacts of a project on an historic property will be significant and adverse. By definition, a substantial adverse change means, “demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration,” such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. For purposes of NRHP eligibility, reductions in a property’s integrity (the ability of the property to convey its significance) should be regarded as potentially adverse impacts. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2): An historical resource is materially impaired when a project...[d]emolishes 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] 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. The CEQA lead agency is responsible for the identification of “potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource.” The specified methodology for determining if impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings

Environmental Impact Report 93 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), publications of the National Park Service. With respect to cultural resources, the project would have a significant effect if it would: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in § 15064.5 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries

The Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A) determined that the project would not have significant adverse effects that were not already adequately addressed in the DAP EIR with regard to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains. As such, only direct and indirect impacts to historic resources (i.e., Threshold 1) are discussed in this section. Project Impacts Threshold 1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5 Impact CR-1 Although the proposed demolition of the existing commercial building on-site would not directly affect an eligible historical resource, the proposed building design would adversely affect the setting of nearby historical resources, including the adjacent Shattuck Hotel and the greater proposed Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District. Impacts on the integrity of historical resources would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation to enhance the compatibility of the proposed building’s design with surrounding historical resources.

The project would involve demolition of the existing two-story commercial building on-site, which was constructed in 1958 for J.C. Penney Company. As discussed in the Setting section, although the original building was representative of the architecture of mid-century commercial department stores, a series of extensive modifications to the building’s exterior leave it without remaining integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The modifications over time have fundamentally altered the building’s character and render it ineligible for consideration as an individual historical resource or as a contributor to the proposed Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District. Therefore, demolition of this building would not have a direct adverse effect on an historical resource. Because the existing building is not eligible for designation as an historical resource, its demolition also would not be inconsistent with Berkeley General Plan Policy LU-2 to “protect Berkeley’s character by identifying, restoring, and preserving historic buildings” and with DAP Policy HD-1.1 to “preserve historic buildings and sites of Downtown.” The proposed demolition and construction of a new mixed-use building would occur in the context of the proposed Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District. As listed in Table 14, seven identified historic resources in the vicinity of the project site contribute to this district,

94 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources including the Shattuck Hotel located adjacent to the project site, directly across Allston Way to the south. This Mission Revival building is also a City of Berkeley Historic Landmark. The following aspects of the proposed building’s design would reduce potential impairment of the Shattuck Hotel’s integrity of setting: . The upper floors of the proposed building would step back at two levels. The lower setback, above the seventh floor along Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, would correspond to the cornice line of the Shattuck Hotel. The use of a “loggia floor” at the seventh level would serve as a strong reference to the scale of the neighboring historic building. The higher setback would push the massing of the upper‐most floors (floors 13‐18) to the western end of the lot, maximally distant from Shattuck Avenue. This massing would further reduce the bulkiness of the building. . Access to the proposed parking garage would be located at the west end of the Allston elevation, maximally distant from Shattuck Avenue.

While the project incorporates several design elements that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines, it lacks design elements that would reflect full compliance with these guidelines. ARG’s Historic Resources Technical Report finds that two aspects of the proposed building’s design would be incompatible with the neighboring Shattuck Hotel. The proposed slanted walls composed of slotted aluminum panels at stories two through six along Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way would not comply with the following Downtown Berkeley Design Guideline for façades because they would conflict with the rhythm of the Shattuck Hotel’s design: . “Reflect and reinforce the scale, massing, proportions, rhythm and attention to detailing which are established by the façades of Landmark and Significant buildings” (Design Guideline 1, page 27).

In addition, while the proposed window wall systems would clearly differentiate the new building from nearby historical resources, the design of these wall systems would not comply with the following Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines because of incompatibility with the exterior of the Shattuck Hotel and other buildings: . “The façades of Downtown’s historic buildings are comprised of load‐bearing walls and frames, the limits of which give similar scale and expression. Maintain the typical rhythm of structural bays and enframed storefronts of 15‐30 feet spacing at ground level, in order to enhance visual continuity with existing buildings and pedestrian scale. Curtain walls, if used, should be designed with rhythm, patterns and modulation to be visually interesting” (Guideline 7, page 28). . “Window [sic] should comprise 25‐50% of upper façades visible from public areas, and should reflect the rhythm, scale, proportion, and detailing of upper windows of Landmark and Significant buildings” (Guideline 13, page 29). . “Frame windows and use light shelves and other articulation to emulate the rhythm, scale, and reveal (shadow) of traditional buildings” (Guideline 20, page 30).

Without modifications to ensure visual consistency with nearby historic buildings, the proposed slanted walls and window wall systems also would not fully meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standard 9, which holds that new construction must be distinct from, yet consistent with, the design of adjacent historic resources. For the same reason, the project would require design changes to become consistent with Berkeley General Plan Policy UD-16, whereby “the design and scale of new or remodeled buildings should respect

Environmental Impact Report 95 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project the built environment in the area, particularly where the character of the built environment is largely defined by an aggregation of historically and architecturally significant buildings.” Because particular design elements of the project would not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and would not comply with General Plan policy or with elements of the Downtown Area Plan Guidelines, indirect impacts on nearby historical resources would be potentially significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures would bring the project into compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines. Mitigation Measure CR-1a would render the proposed building’s design consistent with Downtown Berkeley Design Guideline 1 for façades; Mitigation Measure CR-1b would ensure consistency with the following Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines for façades: 7, 13, and 20. CR-1a Slanted Wall Modifications

The project applicant shall modify the proposed design of the slanted walls composed of slotted aluminum panels at stories two through six along Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way to make them more compatible with the Shattuck Hotel and other contributors to the proposed Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District. Specifically, these slanted walls shall be replaced with a rectilinear wall system, i.e., one with all wall surfaces either parallel or perpendicular to the abutting property line. CR-1b Wall Rhythm Modifications

The proportion and pattern of void to wall in the proposed wall treatments of the project shall be modified to more closely match that exhibited in the Shattuck Hotel. Potential ways to achieve this include replacing the window wall systems with punched curtain wall systems or breaking up the window wall systems with windowless bays.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of mitigation measures CR-1a and CR-1b would reduce the project’s adverse impacts on the setting of nearby historic resources to a less than significant level, and would bring the project into consistency with State standards, Berkeley General Plan policy, and local design guidelines intended to preserve the integrity of contexts for historical resources. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Impact CR-2 The proposed demolition of the existing building on-site and construction of an 18-story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking would produce ground vibration in the vicinity of existing historical resources. However, the levels of vibration that would be generated by project construction activities would not exceed thresholds for physical damage to historic structures. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. As discussed under Impact N-4 in Section 4.4, Noise and Vibration, construction of the project over an expected 27-month period could intermittently generate high vibration levels near historical resources in the Downtown Area. Demolition of the existing two-story building on-site, grading and excavation down to a depth of 41 feet below the existing grade, and paving would involve the use of construction equipment that could generate vibration. However, the proposed foundation supporting the new mixed-use building would not require the use of pile drivers, which generate the highest vibration levels during the building construction process. Nevertheless, the scale of excavation could generate substantial

96 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources ground vibration. This on-site vibration, if strong enough, could inadvertently cause physical damage to historic structures. Table 15 below shows the historic structures within 200 feet of the project site that could be affected by the proposed construction.

Table 15 Historic Structures within 200 Feet of Proposed Construction Area Approximate distance Address Historic Name Date of Construction (feet) from project site 2016 Allston Way Elks Lodge 1913 140 2190 Shattuck Avenue Shattuck Hotel 1910-1926 55 2177 Shattuck Avenue F.W. Foss Co. Building 1895 160

Potential vibration levels resulting from project construction activities were quantitatively analyzed to determine if project construction would physically impact nearby historic buildings. As discussed in Section 4.4, Noise and Vibration, construction would generate peak vibration levels of about 0.21 inches per second of peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV) at the Shattuck Hotel during the anticipated use of vibratory rollers for repaving of Allston Way. This is below the Caltrans threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for damage to historic buildings from continuous/ frequent intermittent sources. Therefore, vibration generated by project construction activities would not damage historic buildings in the project vicinity and mitigation is not necessary. The impact to historical resources from project construction activities would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation is required.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The impact to historical resources from construction activities would be less than significant without mitigation. Impact CR-3 The proposed 18-story building would partially obstruct views of the San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge from the base of the Campanile and Campanile Way. While the westerly views from Campanile Way are not historical resources in their own right, they are a character-defining feature of a landscape element (Campanile Way) that UC Berkeley has identified as a contributor to a cultural landscape (the Classical Core of campus). The obstruction of views from the base of the Campanile and Campanile Way would not result in a substantial adverse change to the cultural landscape of the Classical Core, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed 180-foot-tall building would be within the physical parameters of the 180-foot “non-hotel” building on the project site that the DAP EIR assumed under buildout of the Downtown Area Plan. As discussed in the DAP EIR, new buildings of this scale in the Downtown Area would not obstruct scenic westward views of the San Francisco Bay from the top of the Campanile on the UC Berkeley campus. However, the proposed building would be within the field of view of scenic vistas from Campanile Way. The Landscape Heritage Plan identifies these scenic views as one of six primary character-defining features for Campanile Way, which in turn contributes to the cultural landscape of campus’s Classical Core. In addition, the DAP EIR identifies views from campus over Downtown Berkeley toward the Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge as having “iconic status in the history of Berkeley.”

Environmental Impact Report 97 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Using policy direction from the DAP and the City’s Downtown Design Guidelines (2012), City of Berkeley staff selected eight westward viewshed perspective locations available to pedestrians on the Campanile Way corridor that warranted visual effect analysis by photosimulations. Figure 23 presents a map of the eight viewshed locations. Table 16 lists the corresponding figure number for each viewshed perspective and the visual features depicted in each simulation.

Table 16 Photosimulation View Locations Perspective Figure # Number Location of Viewshed 25 1 UC Berkeley Campanile, north side of steps at base 26 2 UC Berkeley Campanile, center of steps at base 27 3 UC Berkeley Campanile, south side of steps at base 28 4 Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road, north side of plaza 29 5 Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road, center of plaza 30 6 Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road, south side of plaza 31 7 Campanile Way by Bancroft Library 32 8 Campanile Way by Doe Memorial Library

UC Berkeley Campanile, Steps at Base Perspectives 1 to 3, as shown in Figure 24, Figure 25, and Figure 26, illustrate various westward views from three viewpoints at the Campanile tower. These viewpoints are located at the north, central, and southern side of the steps at the western base of the tower (rather than from the top of the tower as modeled in the DAP EIR). They provide an axial view of San Francisco Bay, Alcatraz Island, and the Golden Gate Bridge in the background, framed by the Campanile Way/Frank Schlessinger Way promenade and its fronting academic buildings and mature landscaping. In this context, the proposed building would eliminate approximately 40-75 percent of the view of the bay and Golden Gate Bridge, with the degree of view intrusion varying based on one’s specific location at the base of the Campanile. Figure 26 shows that this view obstruction would be most extensive from the south side of the steps at the base of the Campanile. Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road Perspectives 4 to 6, as shown in Figure 27, Figure 28, and Figure 29, illustrate various westward views from three viewpoints on Campanile Way next to University Drive/South Hall Road. These viewpoints are located at the north, central, and southern parts of the plaza to the west of the roadway. In the foreground of the existing westward view, Wheeler Hall and Doe Memorial Library and adjacent trees and shrubs are visible. In the background, the bay and Golden Gate Bridge are visible from the center of the plaza; however, intervening trees and academic buildings almost fully obstruct views of these features from the sides of the plaza. Figure 28 indicates that the proposed building would block approximately 60 percent of the existing bay view from the center of the plaza.

98 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

Figure 23 Map of Viewshed Locations

Environmental Impact Report 99 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 24 Photosimulations: Base of Campanile

Existing View from the North Side of the Steps at the Base of the Campanile

Simulated View from the North Side of the Steps at the Base of the Campanile with Project

100 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

Figure 25 Photosimulations: Base of Campanile

Existing View from the Center of the Steps at the Base of the Campanile

Simulated View from the Center of the Steps at the Base of the Campanile with Project

Environmental Impact Report 101 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 26 Photosimulations: Base of Campanile

Existing View from South Side of Steps at the Base of the Campanile

Simulated View from South Side of the Steps

102 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

Figure 27 Photosimulations: Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road

Existing View from North Side of Plaza on Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road

Visual Simulation of Project (Outlined in White) from North Side of Plaza

Environmental Impact Report 103 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 28 Photosimulations: Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road

Existing View from Center of Plaza On Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road

Visual Simulation of Project From Center of Plaza

104 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

Figure 29 Photosimulations: Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road

Existing View from South Side of Plaza on Campanile Way at University Drive/South Hall Road

Visual Simulation of Project from South Side of Plaza

Environmental Impact Report 105 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 30 Photosimulations: Campanile Way by Bancroft Library

Existing View from Campanile Way by Bancroft Library

Visual Simulation of Project from Campanile Way by Bancroft Library

106 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

Figure 31 Photosimulations: Campanile Way by Doe Memorial Library

Existing View from Campanile Way by Doe Memorial Library

Visual Simulation of Project from Campanile Way by Doe Memorial Library

Environmental Impact Report 107 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Campanile Way by Bancroft Library The viewpoint at Perspective 7, shown in Figure 30, is oriented to the north side of Campanile Way adjacent to the Bancroft Library. In the foreground of the existing westward view, mature trees are visible on the right side of Campanile Way while temporary fencing for on-campus construction activity, trees, and academic buildings are visible to the left. In the background, the bay and Golden Gate Bridge are currently visible, although these features are partially obstructed by intervening trees because of the lower elevation of this viewpoint relative to perspectives 1 through 5. The proposed building would obstruct the right half of the view of the bay and the Golden Gate Bridge, while not intruding on views of Alcatraz Island to the left.

Campanile Way by Doe Memorial Library The viewpoint at Perspective 8, shown in Figure 31, is oriented to the south-central side of Campanile Way adjacent to the Doe Memorial Library. This location is representative of westward views on Campanile Way near Sather Road. Similar to the previous perspective, temporary fencing for construction, mature trees, and academic buildings are visible in the foreground alongside Campanile Way, while the bay and Golden Gate Bridge are just visible in the background above distant trees. As indicated by Figure 30 and Figure 31, these scenic background features become less prominent as Campanile Way descends to the west from the tower. The proposed building would rise on the right side of the view corridor, behind an existing tree that already intrudes on these background features. Existing views of the bridge span and bay would remain intact. Therefore, the new building would not substantially intrude on scenic views at perspective 8. In summary, the project would partially obscure the view of Alcatraz Island and San Francisco Bay, as seen from the base of the Campanile and from Campanile Way, the pathway that extends approximately one‐quarter‐mile west from the Campanile. The project would block approximately 40-75 percent of the bay and the span of the Golden Gate Bridge that are currently visible from the Campanile steps, up to approximately 60 percent from the plaza on Campanile Way by University Drive/South Hall Road, and about 50 percent from Campanile Way by Bancroft Library. Thus, the project would adversely affect Campanile Way’s strong visual axis with the Golden Gate Bridge, one of the primary character-defining features of a historically significant component of the campus, as described in the Landscape Heritage Plan. The westerly views from Campanile Way, however, are not historical resources in their own right; instead, they are a character‐defining feature of a landscape element (Campanile Way) that has been identified as a contributor to a cultural landscape (the Classical Core of the UC Berkeley campus). In addition, while Campanile Way contributes to a cultural landscape, it does not provide the Bay views originally envisioned in Frederick Law Olmsted’s 1866 Plan for the college, which organized the campus around a central east- west axis located further north of Campanile Way. Furthermore, the project would not involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of Campanile Way and its “immediate surroundings” (the project is located about 700 feet from the western boundary of the campus, and over 0.5 miles from the upland portions of Campanile Way shown in the simulations) and therefore it would not cause a “substantial adverse change” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1). For these reasons, the adverse effects on scenic views from campus would not constitute a significant impact to an historical resource as defined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

108 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

Finally, while the project would change the existing view of the Golden Gate from Campanile Way, it would not materially impair the significance of Campanile Way (or the Classical Core) as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2) because the view down Campanile Way and over downtown Berkeley’s urban skyline has already changed substantially over time due to development and landscape growth both on campus and in downtown Berkeley. Because project impacts would not materially impair Campanile Way or the Classical Core of the UC Berkeley campus such that they would no longer be eligible for listing as historical resources, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. Cumulative Impacts Planned and pending cumulative development would add about 183,788 square feet of commercial space and 1,301 residential units to the Downtown Area. This development could impact existing historic resources and alter the character of the proposed Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District, even if individual projects have a less than significant impact. The DAP EIR finds that demolition of historic resources from cumulative development in the Downtown Area would be a significant and unavoidable impact. However, the project would not contribute to this cumulative impact because, as discussed in Impact CR-1, the project would not involve demolition of an existing historical building. The existing building proposed for demolition on the project site has been substantially altered since its original construction and lacks the historical integrity needed to make a determination of historical significance (ARG 2016; see Appendix C). The DAP EIR also finds that cumulative development in the Downtown Area would have a less than significant impact on the character-defining features of areas which may have the potential for designation as historic district, assuming that new development complies with the Landmark Preservation Ordinance, conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and is consistent with the updated Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines. As discussed in Impact CR-1, the project would adhere to the Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines with mitigation incorporated to enhance the proposed building’s visual compatibility with the style of the Shattuck Hotel. Therefore, consistent with the analysis in the DAP EIR, the project would not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact of on the character-defining features of potentially historic structures. As discussed in the Noise/Vibration section of the DAP EIR (page 4-203), the use of vibration-generation equipment during construction of projects in the Downtown Area could cause structural damage of nearby historic buildings, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. However, as discussed in Impact CR-2, vibration generated by construction of the project would not degrade the structural integrity of nearby historic buildings such as the Shattuck Hotel. Therefore, the project would not make a considerable contribution to this significant cumulative impact. Although the DAP EIR analyzes the aesthetic impact of cumulative development in the Downtown Area on scenic views from Sather Tower on the UC Berkeley campus, it does not discuss the effect of view obstruction on the setting of historical resources on campus. The Downtown Area is visible from Campanile Way, which UC Berkeley has identified as an iconic element that contributes to a cultural landscape, the Classical Core of campus. To visualize the effect of cumulative development on scenic views available to pedestrians from Campanile Way, City staff selected for photosimulations one westward perspective on the steps at the western base of Sather Tower. Figure 32 below shows the existing view from

Environmental Impact Report 109 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project the north side of these steps and a photosimulation of the same viewshed with cumulative development including the proposed building and the approved 2211 Harold Way Mixed- Use Project. As illustrated in the figure, the Harold Way building would marginally intrude on the left side of the narrow view corridor to the Bay, while the proposed building would obstruct views of the Bay and Golden Gate Bridge on the right side of the view corridor to the Bay. Cumulatively, these projects would block approximately 50 percent of the existing view of the Bay as viewed from the base of the Campanile. However, these projects would neither obstruct views of Alcatraz Island from this perspective nor foreground views of the UC Berkeley campus along Campanile Way. As discussed in Impact CR-3, the view corridor itself is not considered an historical resource, or a defining element of an historical resource; instead, it is a character‐defining feature of a landscape element (Campanile Way) that has been identified as a contributor to a cultural landscape (the Classical Core of the UC Berkeley campus). Cumulative impacts would not materially impair Campanile Way or the Classical Core of the UC Berkeley campus such that they would no longer be eligible for listing as historical resources. In addition, the project and other planned development obstructing the viewshed would not have adverse physical impacts on Campanile Way and its immediate surroundings that would be considered a “substantial adverse change” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1). For these reasons, cumulative development would not result in a significant impact to an historical resource as defined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Therefore, the proposed building would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to an historical resource.

110 Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources

Figure 32 Photosimulations: Base of Campanile

Existing View from the North Side of the steps at the Base of the Campanile

Simulated View from the North Side of the Steps at the Base of the Campanile with Cumulative Development, including the Proposed Project and the 2211 Harold Way Mixed-Use Project

Environmental Impact Report 111 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

This page intentionally left blank.

112 Environmental Impact Analysis Geology and Soils

4.3 Geology and Soils

This section analyzes the project’s temporary and long-term impacts to the geologic stability of the project site and adjacent structures. Data used to prepare this section were obtained from the California Geological Survey (CGS), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the City of Berkeley General Plan Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element, the DAP EIR, the Geotechnical Feasibility Report (ENGEO 2016; see Appendix 6 within Appendix A to this EIR, the Initial Environmental Checklist), and construction plans provided by the applicant. Setting Regional Geology and Soils Downtown Berkeley is located in the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. This province is characterized by parallel northwest trending mountain ranges formed over the past 10 million years or less by active uplift related to complex tectonics of the San Andreas fault/plate boundary system (CGS 2002). The city is bordered on the west by the San Francisco Bay and on the east by the Berkeley Hills. The eastern portion of the city descends somewhat steeply from the Berkeley Hills to the generally flat alluvial floodplain. The western portion of the city, including the Downtown area, slopes gently towards the bay. Elevation in Berkeley ranges from over 1,000 feet above sea level in the hills to the east to just a few feet above sea level along the shore of the San Francisco Bay to the west. The Downtown Area ranges in elevation from approximately 140 to 200 feet above sea level (Berkeley 2009a). Geologic formations in Berkeley consist mainly of Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium, sediment that was eroded over time from the hills to the east and deposited on the generally flat floodplain along the margin of the San Francisco Bay (USGS 2006). These sediment deposits typically contain intermixed silt, clay, sand, and gravel. The unconsolidated sediments are underlain by bedrock of the Franciscan Formation, which is located at depths between 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) to more than 50 feet bgs (Berkeley 2009a). Most of the city is urbanized, and the majority of the land surface is covered in structures and pavement, which limits the extent of exposed surface soils. Most of the alluvium that covers the coastal floodplains of the city is classified as Urban land-Tierra complex belonging to the Alfisols soil order and Urban land-Clear Lake complex belonging to the Vertisols soil order (NRCS 2014). The drainage condition of these soils ranges from moderately well-drained towards the hills to poorly drained towards the bay. The Urban land-Tierra complex, which covers the eastern portion of the city’s coastal floodplain (including Downtown Berkeley), is rated as having a moderate potential for erosion hazard, steel corrosion, and concrete corrosion (NRCS 2014). The following site-specific setting discussion is focused on soil stability and structural stability on-site and adjacent to the project site. As described below under the heading Methodology and Significance Thresholds, the Initial Environmental Checklist (Appendix A) concluded that the project would not result in potentially significant impacts with respect to rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), landslides, substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, expansive soils, or the use of septic tanks. Therefore, this section only discusses the environmental setting as it relates to potentially significant impacts.

Environmental Impact Report 113 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Local Geology The youngest geologic unit mapped at the project site is the Quaternary Temescal formation, which is composed of alluvial fan deposits with interlaced pockets of clayey gravel, sandy silty clay, and sand-clay-silt mixtures (ENGEO 2016). Consistent with geologic mapping for the area, soil borings near the project site encountered stiff sandy lean clay to depths of between 15 to 20 feet bgs, clayey sand and clayey gravel to depths of approximately 20 to 30 feet bgs, and very stiff to hard clay to depths of approximately 65 feet bgs (ENGEO 2016). The historic alignment of Strawberry Creek was located between approximately 50 to 100 feet south of the project site (ENGEO 2016). When the creek was realigned into a culvert at the end of the 19th century, the historic alignment of the creek was filled with artificial fill (ENGEO 2016). Artificial fill is not expected beneath the footprint of the project site but may be present adjacent to the project site (ENGEO 2016). Groundwater may be encountered at the project site at a depth of approximately 15 to 20 feet bgs, depending on daily, seasonal, and annual variation (ENGEO 2016). Regulatory Setting Federal

International Building Code The International Building Code is published by the International Code Council. The scope of this code covers major aspects of construction and design of structures and buildings. The International Building Code has replaced the Uniform Building Code as the basis for the California Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. The 2015 International Building Code addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements that emphasize performance. The International Building Code includes codes governing structural as well as fire- and life-safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs. The International Building Code is updated every three years. State

California Building Code The CBC, Title 24, Part 2 provides building codes and standards for the design and construction of structures in California. The 2016 California Building Code is based on the 2015 International Building Code with the addition of more extensive structural seismic provisions. Chapter 16 of the California Building Code contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces on structures. Local

City of Berkeley General Plan As discussed in the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the City of Berkeley General Plan, Berkeley and the Bay Area are situated in a seismically active area. The Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element contains several objectives, policies, and actions to reduce the potential for loss, injury, or death from seismic-related hazards. Relevant policies are described below in the Downtown Area Plan EIR Summary.

114 Environmental Impact Analysis Geology and Soils

Downtown Area Plan EIR Summary The DAP EIR discusses impacts related to geology and soils on pages 4-125 through 4- 132. The basic geologic setting of the project area has not changed since certification of the DAP EIR. The DAP EIR found that all impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant with required implementation of existing regulations, policies, and standard practices, including the following: . Current Uniform Building Code and City of Berkeley design requirements and guidelines for buildings constructed in areas of high seismic risk. . Berkeley General Plan Policy S-20, which identifies mitigation for potentially hazardous buildings in the event that development under the DAP results in the retrofitting or replacement of existing soft-story or URM (unreinforced masonry) buildings. . Berkeley General Plan policies S-14 and S-15, which require that new development in the Downtown Area be evaluated for susceptibility to liquefaction and landslides, and in those instances where such risks are present, appropriate structural design features be required. . Standard soil erosion control measures during demolition and construction associated with development under the DAP in order to minimize erosion from exposed surfaces and reduce soil erosion impacts. . Appropriate foundation design in accordance with current Uniform Building Code requirements in order to reduce any potential stability hazards.

City of Berkeley Municipal Code Berkeley Municipal Code Section 17.08.045 contains requirements for construction that would occur within 25 feet of a culverted creek. Prior to commencing construction within 25 feet of a culverted creek, the applicant must perform an investigation to determine the distance between the project site and the culverted creek. If the investigation shows that the project site would be within 15 feet of the centerline of the culverted creek, additional requirements would apply, including demonstrating that the structural integrity of and repair and maintenance access for the culverted creek will be maintained and that the flow or water quality of the creek will not be impeded or impaired. Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.28.010 incorporates the requirements and recommendations of the 2016 California Building Code. The California Building Code contains numerous requirements related to structural design, building materials, and foundation design to ensure that construction of buildings in California would not result in injury, loss, or death due to improper construction or geotechnical or seismic conditions.

BART General Guidelines for Design and Construction Over or Adjacent to BART’s Subway Structures BART’s General Guidelines for Design and Construction Over or Adjacent to BART’s Subway Structures (2003) contain requirements for construction within BART’s “zone of influence,” which is defined as a line from the critical point of the BART substructure (station and tunnel) sloping outward towards the ground surface at a slope of 1.5 horizontal units to 1.0 vertical unit. These requirements include standards for minimum clearance, shoring, dewatering, and pile installation.

Environmental Impact Report 115 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Impact Analysis Methodology and Significance Thresholds The analysis of geology and soil impacts considers the effects of both project construction and operation on the surrounding soils and geologic stability of the area and the exposure of people or structures to existing geologic hazards. Impacts would be significant if they would exceed the following thresholds of significance, based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b. Strong seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Landslides? 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The Initial Environmental Checklist (Appendix A) concluded that the project would not result in potentially significant impacts with respect to rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), landslides, substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, expansive soils, or the use of septic tanks. Therefore, this Infill EIR does not engage in further analysis of these issues. The analysis below only addresses threshold 3, with respect to potential adverse effects on the structural stability of the Strawberry Creek culvert and the abutting BART substructure.

116 Environmental Impact Analysis Geology and Soils

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Threshold 3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Impact GEO-1 Construction of the project would occur within 25 feet of the centerline of the Strawberry Creek culvert. The presence of the culvert in proximity to the proposed building’s foundations could potentially result in instability of the proposed building’s foundations. Required compliance with Berkeley Municipal Code and California Building Code standards would reduce the potential for excavation, shoring and foundations to cause instability. However, improper installation of temporary shoring and tiebacks could result in damage to the culvert during project construction. Mitigation would be required to ensure that soil settlement during excavation or the placement of tieback anchors would not destabilize or damage the culvert. The project would have a less than significant impact to the Strawberry Creek culvert from construction with implementation of mitigation.

Construction of the project would occur near the Strawberry Creek culvert, which is located beneath the westbound lane of Allston Way adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site (ENGEO 2016). Because of the project site’s proximity to this culvert, it would be subject to requirements and restrictions in Berkeley Municipal Code Section 17.08.045 for construction near creek culverts. These requirements include an investigation that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Engineer the precise location of the culverted creek. A preliminary investigation by the applicant found that the centerline of the Strawberry Creek culvert is located approximately 24.6 feet from the edge of the project site at its nearest location. In accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code Section 17.08.045, the applicant would be required to submit to the City Engineer prior to undertaking construction a map with topographic features and two foot contours that shows the depth and size of the culvert and that confirms the distance between the edge of the project site and the culverted creek. Furthermore, compliance with the 2016 California Building Code, as incorporated by reference in Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.28.010, would ensure that construction would not result in adverse effects on the culvert’s structural integrity. Chapter 18 of the California Building Code contains detailed requirements for construction of deep foundations, including requirements for bracing, shoring, maintenance of soil stability, protection of adjacent structures, and stabilization of lateral loads. Temporary shoring and tiebacks also would be necessary during construction to ensure the stability of the basement walls. The shoring, including tiebacks and tieback anchors, would need to be designed to avoid any impacts to the culverted creek. Because the project site is located more than 15 feet from the centerline of the Strawberry Creek culvert and construction must comply with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the California Building Code (which would ensure stability of adjacent soils and structures), the potential for the project to destabilize or damage the adjacent culvert is low. However, depending on the specific excavation and shoring techniques proposed, construction of the project could have a potentially significant impact related to the integrity and stability of the adjacent culverted creek.

Environmental Impact Report 117 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

MITIGATION MEASURE To ensure that construction of the project would not adversely affect the adjacent Strawberry Creek culvert, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure proper temporary shoring and tieback design and would prevent damage or destabilization of the adjacent culvert during excavation and construction. GEO-1 Temporary Shoring and Tieback Design Review Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit to the City of Berkeley Department of Planning & Development – Building and Safety Division for review and approval the results of a site-specific geotechnical investigation as well as final engineering and design plans for excavation, temporary shoring, tiebacks, and tieback anchors. The final engineering and design plans for the project shall demonstrate the precise location of the Strawberry Creek culvert, the location of all tiebacks and tieback anchors, the shoring design pressures, the bearing strength of the soil between the project and the culvert, and the construction sequencing. Excavation and temporary shoring shall be designed to limit horizontal and vertical ground deformations such that the stability of the adjacent culvert would not be affected. The installation of tiebacks and tieback anchors shall be designed to prevent damage to the adjacent culvert.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION City review and approval of final engineering and design plans in accordance with the performance standards in Mitigation Measure GEO-1, prior to commencement of construction activities, would eliminate or substantially reduce the potential for project activities to adversely affect the Strawberry Creek culvert. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

Threshold 3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Impact GEO-2 Construction of the project would occur within the zone of influence of the adjacent BART station and tunnels. Improper construction within this zone could result in damage to, or destabilization of, the proposed project and the BART subway tunnel and station. Mitigation would be required to ensure that the construction design meets all applicable BART standards. With implementation of mitigation, the project would have a less than significant impact related to the structural integrity of BART substructures.

The underground Downtown Berkeley BART Station and tunnel are located immediately east of the project site. Based on conceptual design plans provided by the applicant, the edge of the project site is located approximately 12 feet from the edge of the BART station and the project site is located within the BART “zone of influence,” which is defined as a conceptual line extending from the critical point of the BART substructure sloping outward towards the ground surface at a slope of 1.5 horizontal units to 1.0 vertical unit (BART 2003). Improper excavation and construction of the project within the BART zone of influence could damage or destabilize the adjacent BART structures or the proposed building, resulting in the exposure of people to hazards. During excavation on-site, damage to the adjacent BART structures could occur if surrounding soils are not properly stabilized

118 Environmental Impact Analysis Geology and Soils through temporary shoring, if the vertical or horizontal loads within the zone of influence are altered, or if the local groundwater table is lowered by more than two feet. Following excavation, construction of the project could damage or destabilize adjacent BART structures if the vertical or horizontal loading on either the BART structures or soils within the zone of influence are increased. As described above under Impact GEO-1, construction of the project would be subject to the requirements of Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.28.010, which incorporates the 2016 California Building Code. Compliance with California Building Code would require the design and execution of excavation and construction such that adjacent soils or structures would not become unstable. Chapter 18 of the California Building Code contains detailed requirements for construction of deep foundations, including requirements for bracing, shoring, maintenance of soil stability, protection of adjacent structures, and stabilization of lateral loads. The applicant proposes to install drilled soldier piles along the outside of the eastern foundation wall to provide adequate shoring and support for all structures and support within the BART zone of influence. Because the applicant has not prepared final engineering and design plans, it is unknown whether or not construction of the project would adhere to BART requirements for construction in the BART zone of influence. Therefore, construction of the project would have a potentially significant impact related to the integrity of adjacent BART structures.

MITIGATION MEASURE To ensure that construction of the project would not adversely affect the adjacent BART structures, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would ensure consistency with BART’s General Guidelines for Design and Construction Over or Adjacent to BART’s Subway Structures and would prevent damage or destabilization of the adjacent BART structures during excavation and construction. GEO-2 BART Zone of Influence Design Review Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit to the City of Berkeley Department of Planning & Development – Building and Safety Division for review and approval the results of a site-specific geotechnical investigation as well as final engineering and design plans for the building, including all subsurface and above-ground elements of the project. The final engineering and design plans for the project shall demonstrate adherence to BART’s General Guidelines for Design and Construction Over or Adjacent to BART’s Subway Structures. Applicable elements of the General Guidelines may include, but are not limited to, the following: . Minimum clearance of 7’6” between new construction and BART substructures . Shoring for excavations in the Zone of Influence . Monitoring of shoring to ensure that it maintains at-rest soil condition . Monitoring of dewatering and recharging if the existing groundwater level is expected to drop by more than two feet . Predrilling of piles to a minimum of 10 feet below the Line of Influence, which is a line from the critical point of a BART substructure at a slope of 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical towards ground level

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would eliminate or substantially reduce the potential for project activities to adversely affect BART structures. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

Environmental Impact Report 119 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Cumulative Impacts The project and related projects in the area, as identified in Table 7 in Section 3, Environmental Setting, would involve excavation and construction in the Downtown Area that could destabilize the underlying geology and soils and potentially result in damage to nearby BART structures. If other cumulative projects are located within BART’s zone of influence, then those projects would also be subject to BART review and approval of final design and engineering plans. Also, all cumulative projects would be subject to the requirements of the California Building Code, which would ensure that structures and foundations are designed and constructed in a manner that does not destabilize underlying or adjacent structures or soil. Compliance with the California Building Code and adherence to BART’s General Guidelines would reduce potential cumulative impacts related to the stability of BART substructures to a less than significant level. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2, project-specific impacts to BART substructure stability from construction of the project would be less than significant, and the project’s contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

120 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

4.4 Noise and Vibration

This section evaluates the project’s potential impact to local noise conditions. Both temporary construction noise and long-term noise generated by the project are evaluated. Setting Overview of Noise and Vibration Measurement

Noise Noise is defined as unwanted sound that disturbs human activity. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (similar to the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to frequencies below 100 Hertz (similar to a transformer hum). Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dB, and a sound that is 10 dB less than the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dB greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dBA changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while those along arterial streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations. Noise levels typically attenuate (drop off) at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from point sources such as industrial machinery. Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dB per doubling of distance. In addition to the instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. The time period in which noise occurs is also important since nighttime noise tends to disturb people more than daytime noise. Two commonly used noise metrics – the Day-Night average level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - recognize this fact by weighting hourly Leqs over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is a 24-hour average noise level that adds 10 dB to actual nighttime (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) noise levels to account for the greater sensitivity to noise during that time period. The CNEL is identical to the Ldn, except it also adds a 5 dB penalty for noise occurring during the evening (7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.).

Environmental Impact Report 121 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL typically do not differ by more than 1 dBA. In practice, CNEL and Ldn are often used interchangeably. The relationship between peak hourly Leq values and associated Ldn values depends on the distribution of traffic over the entire day. There is no precise way to convert a peak hourly Leq to Ldn. However, in urban areas near heavy traffic, such as the project site in Downtown Berkeley, the peak hourly Leq is typically 2-4 dBA lower than the daily Ldn or CNEL.

Vibration Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Groundborne vibration related to human annoyance is generally related to root mean square (RMS) velocity levels expressed in vibration decibels (VdB). However, construction-related groundborne vibration in relation to its potential for building damage can also be measured in inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) (Federal Transit Administration 2006). Based on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment and the Caltrans’) 1992 Transportation-Related Earthborne Vibration, Technical Advisory, vibration levels decrease by 6 VdB with every doubling of distance. The background vibration velocity level in residential and educational areas is usually around 50 VdB. (FTA 2006). The threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Groundborne vibration levels in excess of 95 VdB would damage extremely fragile historic buildings. Sensitive Receptors Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. The Berkeley General Plan’s Environmental Management Element defines noise-sensitive receptors as residences, child-care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and other similar land uses. These land uses have more stringent noise exposure thresholds than commercial or industrial uses that are not susceptible to certain impacts, such as sleep disturbance. Sensitive land uses generally should not be subjected to noise levels that would be considered intrusive in character. Therefore, the location, hours of operation, type of use, and extent of development warrant close analysis in an effort to ensure that noise sensitive receptors are not substantially affected by noise. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are Berkeley City College on Center Street (approximately 100 feet to the northwest), apartments at the Marsh Arts Center building on Allston Way (about 300 feet to the east), a multi-family residential building on Kittredge Street (about 400 feet to the southwest), and Berkeley High School on Milvia Street (about 500 feet to the southwest). The adjacent, historic Shattuck Hotel also could be vulnerable to structural damage from strong groundborne vibration.

122 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

Existing Noise Conditions and Sources The most common and primary sources of noise in the project site vicinity are motor vehicles (e.g., automobiles, buses, trucks, and motorcycles) along Shattuck Avenue, Allston Way, and Center Street. Additional vehicle traffic is present on adjacent roadways (e.g., Harold Way), but is substantially lower than traffic along Shattuck Avenue. Motor vehicle noise is of concern because it is characterized by a high number of individual events, which often create a sustained noise level, and because of its proximity to noise sensitive uses. Shattuck Avenue, which is adjacent to the project site, produces the highest level of noise from traffic among adjacent roadways. Additional sources of noise in the project site vicinity include activities associated with nearby school and commercial uses. Existing noise on the project site includes noise from project area traffic and commercial land uses. To quantify existing noise levels on and near the project site, two weekday 15-minute noise measurements (Leq[15] dBA) were taken during the afternoon rush hour on February 23, 2017, using an ANSI Type II integrating sound level meter. Figure 33 shows the location of these noise measurements. Noise Measurement Location 1, at the southwest corner of Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, is representative of maximum exterior noise levels from peak hour roadway traffic at the project site, facing Shattuck Avenue. This location was selected for its proximity and similarity to the BART plaza in front of the project site, which was fenced off and under construction at the time of noise measurements. Noise Measurement Location 2, on the sidewalk of Allston Way near the Fast Response entrance to the project site, is representative of noise levels on the project site facing Allston Way. The noise monitoring results are summarized in Table 17.

Table 17 Noise Measurement Results Measure- ment Distance from Centerline Approximate Location1 Primary Noise Source of Nearest Road Sample Time Leq dBA2 1 Shattuck Avenue 55 feet 4:35 P.M. - 4:50 P.M. 67.8

2 Allston Way 20 feet 4:55 P.M. - 5:10 P.M. 65.6

1 Measurement locations are shown in Figure 33. 2 All measurements were taken on February 23, 2017, using an ANSI Type II sound level meter. Refer to Appendix D for noise measurement results.

Regulatory Setting

State Noise and Vibration Policies Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations codifies Sound Transmission Control requirements establishing uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards for new hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family dwellings. Specifically, Section 1207.4 in Title 24 states that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room of a new building. While there are no State standards for vibration, for continuous, frequent, and intermittent vibration, Caltrans considers the architectural damage risk level to be somewhere between 0.08 and 0.5 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) depending on the type of building that is affected.

Environmental Impact Report 123 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Figure 33 Noise Measurement Locations

124 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

City of Berkeley Noise and Vibration Policies Section 13.40, Community Noise, of the Berkeley Municipal Code sets the City’s standards for on-site operational noise and construction noise. As shown in Table 18, Section 13.40.050, Exterior Noise Standards, provides the exterior noise limits not to be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour in various zoning districts. If the measured ambient noise level exceeds these limits, the allowable noise exposure standard would be the ambient noise level.

Table 18 City of Berkeley Exterior Noise Limits

1 Zone Time Period L50 Noise Level, dBA R-1, R-2 7:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. 55 10:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M. 45 R-3 and Above 7:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. 60 10:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M. 55 Commercial 7:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. 65 10:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M. 60 Industry Anytime 70 Source: Berkeley, Municipal Code Section 13.40.050. 1 L50 is the noise level that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour.

Section 13.40.060 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, Interior Noise Standards, sets interior noise limits for multi-residential as shown in Table 19.

Table 19 City of Berkeley Interior Noise Limits

Zone Time Period Noise Level, dBA (Leq) All 7:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. 45 10:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M. 40 Source: City of Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.40.060

Section 13.40.070 of the Municipal Code sets standards for construction noise. This section prohibits construction activity between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays, 8:00 P.M. to 9:00 A.M. on weekends and holidays such that the resulting noise creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line. Table 20 lists the City’s maximum sound levels for mobile and stationary equipment that apply to construction activity when technically and economically feasible during permitted hours of construction.

Environmental Impact Report 125 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Table 20 Construction Noise Standards

Equipment Residential Multi-Family Commercial/ Type Day/Times (R-1, R-2) Residential (R-3) Industrial

Mobile Weekdays 75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.

Weekends and Holidays 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.

Stationary Weekdays 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.

Weekends and Holidays 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.

Adapted from Table 13.40-3 and Table 13.40-4 of the City of Berkeley’s Construction Noise Standards: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Health_Human_Services/Level_3_- _General/Construction%20Noise%20Standard.pdf

The City of Berkeley’s General Plan addresses noise-related issues in the Environmental Management Element, which was adopted in April 2002. Policy EM-47 of the Environmental Management Element ensures that new noise-sensitive uses, such as residences, are protected from detrimental noise levels. The policy sets normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and unacceptable exterior noise levels that apply to the placement of new noise-sensitive receptors: for new residences, noise exposure of up to 60 dBA Ldn is considered normally acceptable; noise levels of between 60 and 75 dBA Ldn are conditionally acceptable and would require detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation features; and any noise level above 75 dBA Ldn is considered unacceptable because mitigation is not usually feasible. Downtown Area Plan EIR Summary The DAP EIR discusses noise and vibration impacts on pages 4-195 through 4-205. The DAP EIR examined a range of potential impacts related to noise and vibration, including exposure of new development to excessive noise levels; exposure of Downtown area residents to noise associated with commercial activities and/or mechanical equipment; increased traffic noise, a cumulative increase in Downtown area noise levels; and construction-related noise and vibration. Impacts were assessed in the context of adopted planning documents, including the City’s 2003 General Plan. The DAP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures that would be applicable to the currently proposed project: . Impact NOI-1: Exposure to Excessive Noise Levels. New development under the DAP (particularly residential uses adjacent to principal streets) could be exposed to excessive noise levels. With completion of the development anticipated under the DAP, noise levels along many Downtown Area roadways would exceed those considered compatible with exterior residential land uses (60 dBA Ldn), a potentially significant impact. Where exterior noise levels exceed 70 dBA Ldn, such as along University Avenue and Shattuck Avenue, residential units would not be able to meet the 45-dBA Ldn interior standard simply through typical construction methods. This would be a potentially significant impact. Retail units developed under the DAP along most of the area roadways would meet the exterior commercial land use compatibility guideline of 70 dBA Ldn established in the Noise Element. Exterior noise levels would exceed 70

126 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

dBA Ldn along University Avenue and Shattuck Avenue. This would be a potentially significant impact.  Mitigation NOI-1. Site-Specific Noise Studies/Site Planning/Noise Control Treatments. Future residential units proposed under the DAP would be exposed to outdoor noise levels in excess of 60 dBA Ldn and indoor noise levels in excess of 45 dBA Ldn, which would exceed the City’s and state’s established land use compatibility thresholds. In areas where residential development would be exposed to an Ldn of greater than 60 dBA, site-specific noise studies should be conducted to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate mitigation measures, which may include the following: . Utilize site planning to minimize noise in shared residential outdoor activity areas by locating these areas behind the buildings, in courtyards, or orienting the terraces to alleyways rather than streets, whenever possible. . The California Building Code and the City of Berkeley require project-specific acoustical analyses to achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA Ldn or lower in residential units exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA Ldn. Building sound insulation requirements would need to include the provision of forced-air mechanical ventilation in noise environments exceeding 70 dBA Ldn so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. Special building construction techniques (e.g., sound-rated windows and building façade treatments) may be required where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA Ldn. These treatments include, but are not limited to, sound rated windows and doors, sound rated exterior wall assemblies, acoustical caulking, etc. The specific determination of what treatments are necessary will be conducted on a unit-by-unit basis during project design. Result of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, will be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Feasible construction techniques such as these would adequately reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or lower. Implementation of the above measure would reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. . Impact NOI-2: Exposure of Downtown Area Residents to Noise Associated with Commercial Activities and/or Mechanical Equipment. The proposed development would introduce commercial uses adjacent to residential land uses. Specific tenants for the commercial uses have not been identified, but uses would probably include retail stores, restaurants, or cafes. New commercial development proposed along with (or next to) residential development could result in noise levels exceeding City standards. Typical noise levels generated by loading and unloading would be similar to noise levels generated by truck movements on local roadways. Mechanical equipment would also have the potential to generate noise, and would represent a potentially significant impact.  Mitigation NOI-2: Site-Specific Noise Studies/Activities Scheduling. The following measures should be implemented to reduce noise exposure of Downtown Area residents to noise associated with nearby commercial activities: . Noise levels at residential property lines from commercial development should be maintained not in excess of the Berkeley Municipal Code Limits. The approvals of the commercial development should require a noise study demonstrating how

Environmental Impact Report 127 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

the business (including loading docks, refuse areas, and ventilation systems) would meet, and be consistent with, the City’s noise standards. . Ensure that noise-generating activities, such as maintenance activities and loading and unloading activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. The implementation of the above measures is consistent with existing City ordinances and would reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. . Impact NOI-3: Increase in Traffic Noise. Implementation of the DAP would increase traffic noise levels substantially along two street segments (Shattuck Avenue between University Avenue and Allston Way, and Allston Way between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street), potentially exposing residences to excessive noise levels. This would represent a significant impact.  Mitigation NOI-3: Site-Specific Noise Analysis/Noise Barriers/Pavement Modifications/Traffic Calming/Sound Insulation. Where anticipated noise levels would exceed City of Berkeley standards for interior noise, methods available to mitigate DAP-related noise level increases would need to be studied on a case-by- case basis as individual development projects are proposed at receivers that would be considered noise impacted along Shattuck Avenue between University Avenue and Allston Way, and along Allston Way between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street. Since these increases in noise levels are related to the closure of Center Street and the elimination of travel lanes on Shattuck Avenue assumed under the DAP, retaining existing travel lane configurations in the Downtown Area street network would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. With the proposed DAP street network modifications in place, however, noise reduction methods could include the following: . Installing traffic calming measures to slow traffic. Typically, each 5 mph reduction in travel speeds equates to 1 dBA of noise reduction. . Affected residences could be provided building sound insulation such as sound- rated windows and doors on a case-by-case basis as a method of reducing noise levels in interior spaces. Given the scope of the DAP and expected noise level increases resulting from DAP- related traffic, it may not be reasonable or feasible to reduce DAP-related traffic noise at all affected receivers. The increase in development density would increase noise levels noticeably at receivers. Measures available to reduce the DAP-related noise level increases would not likely be reasonable or feasible in all areas. Therefore, the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

. Impact NOI-4: Cumulative Increase in Downtown Area Noise Levels. Implementation of the DAP would make a “cumulatively considerable” contribution to noise levels along three street segments in the Downtown Area (Shattuck Avenue between University Avenue and Allston Way, Allston Way between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street, and Durant Avenue between Milvia Street and Shattuck Avenue) that would be substantially increased as a result of cumulative growth in the area, a significant cumulative impact.  Mitigation NOI-4: Site-Specific Noise Analysis/Noise Barriers/Pavement Modifications/Traffic Calming/Sound Insulation. Where anticipated noise levels would exceed City of Berkeley standards for interior noise, methods available to mitigate DAP-related noise level increases would need to be studied on a case-by- case basis as individual development projects are proposed at receivers that would be considered noise impacted along Shattuck Avenue between University Avenue

128 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

and Allston Way, along Allston Way between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street, and along Durant Avenue between Milvia Street and Shattuck Avenue. Since these increases in noise levels are related to the closure of Center Street and the elimination of travel lanes on Shattuck Avenue assumed under the DAP, retaining existing travel lane configurations in the Downtown Area street network would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. With the proposed DAP street network modifications, however, noise reduction methods could include the following: . Installing traffic calming measures to slow traffic. Typically, each 5 mph reduction in travel speeds equates to 1 dBA of noise reduction. . Affected residences could be provided building sound insulation such as sound- rated windows and doors on a case-by-case basis as a method of reducing noise levels in interior spaces. Measures available to reduce cumulative noise level increases would not likely be reasonable or feasible in all areas. Therefore, the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. . Impact NOI-5: Construction Noise. Businesses and residences throughout the Downtown Area would be intermittently exposed to high levels of noise throughout the planning horizon. Construction would elevate noise levels at adjacent businesses and residences by 15 to 20 dBA or more, a significant impact.  Mitigation NOI-5: Develop Site-Specific Noise-Reduction Programs and Implement Noise Abatement Measures During Construction. 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 shall include appropriate time limits for construction (7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on weekends or holidays) as well as technically and economically feasible controls to meet the requirements of the Berkeley Municipal Code. The noise reduction program should include, but shall not be limited to, the following available controls to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical: . Construction equipment should be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical. . Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. . Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. Select hydraulically or electrically powered equipment and avoid pneumatically powered equipment where feasible. . Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when adjoining construction sites. Construct temporary noise barriers or partial enclosures to acoustically shield such equipment where feasible. . Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. . If impact pile driving is required, pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. . Construct solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to operational business, residences or other noise-sensitive land uses where the noise control plan analysis determines that a barrier would be effective at reducing noise.

Environmental Impact Report 129 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

. Erect temporary noise control blanket barriers, if necessary, along building facades facing construction sites. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected. . Route construction related traffic along major roadways and away from sensitive receptors where feasible. . Businesses, residences or other noise-sensitive land uses within 500 feet of construction sites should be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to the beginning of construction. Designate a “construction liaison” that would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The liaison would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the liaison at the construction site.

Although the above measures would reduce noise generated by the construction of individual projects, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the extended period of time that adjacent receivers would be exposed to construction noise. . Impact NOI-6: Construction-Related Vibration. Residences, businesses, and historic structures within or in the vicinity of the Downtown Area would be exposed to construction-related vibration during the excavation and foundation work of the buildings constructed under the DAP, a significant impact.  Mitigation NOI-6: Avoidance of Pile-Driving/Site-Specific Vibration Studies/Monitoring/Contingency Planning. The following measures are recommended to reduce vibration from construction activities: . Avoid impact pile-driving where possible. Drilled piles causes lower vibration levels where geological conditions permit their use. . Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas. . In areas where project construction is anticipated to include vibration-generating activities, such as pile-driving in close proximity to existing structures, site- specific vibration studies should be conducted to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate mitigation measures that may include the following: • Identification of sites that would include vibration compaction activities such as pile-driving and that have the potential to generate groundborne vibration, and the sensitivity of nearby structures to groundborne vibration. Vibration limits should be applied to all vibration-sensitive structures located within 200 feet of the project. A qualified structural engineer should conduct this task. • Development of a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure-specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. • Construction contingencies would be identified for when vibration levels approached the limits. • At a minimum, vibration monitoring should be conducted during initial demolition activities and during pile-driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements.

130 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

• When vibration levels approach limits, suspend construction and implement contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. • Conduct post-survey on structure where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage has been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of vibration.

It may not be possible to avoid using impact pile-drivers, vibratory rollers, and tampers entirely during the construction of projects in the Downtown Area. Due to the density of development in the area, some of these activities may take place near sensitive structures. In these cases, the mitigation measures listed above would not be sufficient to reduce groundborne vibration to a level of less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures NOI-1, NOI-2, NOI-3, NOI-4, NOI-5, and NOI-6 would apply to the proposed project. However, the DAP EIR concluded that impacts related to increases in traffic noise (Impact NOI-3), cumulative traffic noise (Impact NOI-4), construction-related noise (Impact NOI-5), construction-related vibration (Impacts NOI-6) would be significant and unavoidable. Impact Analysis Methodology and Significance Thresholds The analysis of noise impacts considers the effects of both temporary construction-related noise and long-term noise associated with operation of the project. Impacts would be significant if they would exceed the following thresholds of significance, based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines: 1. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; 2. Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; 3. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; 4. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; 5. Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; or 6. Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

The Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A) concluded that the project would not result in an impact with respect to noise exposure from public or private airports. Therefore, Thresholds 5 and 6 are not discussed in this EIR. Impacts related to the other CEQA thresholds are discussed below.

Environmental Impact Report 131 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Construction Noise Estimates of construction noise are based on reference noise levels reported by the FTA for various pieces of construction equipment, and the distance to nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Reference noise levels from the FTA’s Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) were used to estimate noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance for point sources. Construction noise level estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which could reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the estimated construction noise levels represent a conservative estimate of actual construction noise. A preliminary list of construction equipment was obtained from the project applicant, and number of each type of equipment was derived from the California Emissions Model (CalEEMod) run prepared for the project (see Section 4.1, Air Quality). The project would have a significant impact if construction noise occurs outside of permitted hours or occurs during permitted daytime hours in excess of the noise standards for stationary equipment in commercial zones shown in Table 20.

Groundborne Vibration This analysis applies the following vibration thresholds established by the FTA for disturbance of people: 65 VdB for buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations (such as hospitals and recording studios), 72 VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep, including hotels, and 75 VdB for institutional land uses with primary daytime use (such as churches and schools). These thresholds apply to “frequent events,” which the FTA defines as vibration events occurring more than 70 times per day. The thresholds for frequent events are considered appropriate because of the scale and duration of proposed construction activity. In addition, this analysis applies thresholds for intermittent sources in the Caltrans Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual (2004) for potential damage to buildings. Caltrans developed these thresholds as a synthesis of vibration criteria from several published sources (Caltrans 2004). Table 21 shows the thresholds applied by Caltrans, which are expressed in terms of maximum inches per second (in/sec) of peak particle velocity (PPV):

132 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

Table 21 Vibration-Related Building Damage Thresholds Maximum PPV (in/sec)

Transient Continuous/Frequent Structure and Condition Sources1 Intermittent Sources2

Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08

Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10

Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25

Older residential structures 0.50 0.30

New residential structures 1.00 0.50

Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50

Source: Caltrans 2004. 1 Transient sources create a single, isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. 2 Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. in/sec = inches per second PPV = peak particle velocity

A formula provided in the Caltrans guidance manual is used to calculate the attenuation of vibration from a reference distance of 25 feet to the distances of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors: n PPV = PPVref x (25/D) (in/sec)

This formula takes into account the reference vibration level (PPVref), the distance from vibration-generating equipment to the receptor (D), and a constant value related to the attenuation rate through the ground (n). The n-value is assumed to be 1.1, Caltrans’ suggested value for conservative analysis. This value applies to the dense, compacted soil that the Geotechnical Feasibility Report (see Appendix 6 within Appendix A to this EIR, the Infill Environmental Checklist) identified in the project area and is appropriate for a developed urban environment.

On-Site Operational Noise Noise levels from one-site operational noise sources were estimated at the nearest noise sensitive receptors by calculating the noise levels from equipment and the distance to receptors. Noise estimates were compared to the City of Berkeley exterior noise standards shown in Table 18. Noise measurements taken on February 23, 2017 (Table 17) were above the 65 dBA Leq City of Berkeley threshold for commercial zones. According to the Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.40.050 the measured ambient noise level becomes the noise standard. Therefore, a noise standard of 67.8 dBA Leq was used to determine the significance for noise sensitive receptors.

Roadway Noise Noise levels associated with existing and future traffic along area roadways were estimated by completing a screening analysis for project-generated traffic. Existing A.M. and P.M. peak-hour traffic volumes were compared with the expected peak-hour traffic volume increases after construction of the project, using traffic volumes provided in the

Environmental Impact Report 133 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Transportation Impact Analysis conducted by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. in June 2017 (see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Peak-hour traffic volumes were used in this analysis because they represent the busiest traffic conditions. Based on the traffic analysis, the project would generate 431 daily trips, 33 A.M. peak-hour trips and 40 P.M. peak-hour trips (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Project-generated trips would be distributed among area roadways including Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way. Modeling of traffic noise indicates that, in general, a 10 percent increase in traffic volume would raise traffic noise by approximately 0.4 dBA, a 20 percent increase would raise traffic noise by about 0.8 dBA, a 30 percent increase would result in an approximately 1.1 dBA increase in traffic noise, and a 40 percent increase would increase traffic noise by about 1.5 dBA. While the City has not adopted standards for an increase in traffic noise due to a project, this screening analysis evaluates the project’s effect on traffic noise based on the threshold applied in the DAP EIR: an increase greater than 4 dBA Ldn in residential areas or mixed-use areas with residential units. Cumulative traffic noise was evaluated using a similar screening methodology based on projected cumulative traffic volumes for the year 2040, provided by the Transportation Impact Analysis. This cumulative forecast was developed using growth rates for weekday peak-hour traffic volumes derived from the Alameda County Transportation Commission travel demand model (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). This analysis applies the DAP EIR’s threshold for a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact: a contribution of 1 dBA Ldn or more to an increase of 4 dBA Ldn or more over existing conditions.

Noise Exposure to New Residences This section analyzes noise exposure to new residents for informational purposes only because the Second District Court of Appeal found in 2011 that, as an impact of the environment on the project, it is not required for CEQA compliance (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust et al. v. City of Los Angeles). To evaluate the exposure of new residences on the project site to ambient, existing ambient noise levels were compared to City standards for new residences. Pursuant to Policy EM-47 in the City’s General Plan, noise exposure of up to 60 dBA Ldn is considered normally acceptable; noise levels of between 60 and 75 dBA Ldn are conditionally acceptable and would require detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation features; and any noise level above 75 dBA Ldn is considered unacceptable because mitigation is not usually feasible. It is assumed that exterior materials used in modern buildings reduce exterior noise by about 25 dBA Ldn in the interior environment. Estimated interior noise levels were compared to the California Building Code and City standard of 45 dBA Ldn.

134 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold 4 Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impact N-1 Project construction would temporarily generate high noise levels on and near the project site. Construction noise levels would intermittently exceed City standards for construction noise in commercial zones, particularly in the first months of construction during excavation and construction of the foundation system. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Construction of the project over a 27-month period would intermittently generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site. Demolition of the existing two-story building on- site, and grading and excavation down to a depth of 41 feet below the existing grade would involve the use of construction equipment that generates substantial noise. Noise impacts from construction activity would depend on the type of activity being undertaken and the distance to the receptor location. Construction noise impacts are most severe if construction activities occur during times of day when people are most sensitive to noise (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), in areas immediately adjoining noise- sensitive land uses, or when construction duration lasts over extended periods of time. Project construction activity would generate temporary noise at nearby noise-sensitive land uses, including Berkeley City College approximately 100 feet to the northwest, apartments at the Marsh Arts Center building 300 feet east, and Berkeley High School approximately 500 feet to the southwest. Construction activity also would occur within 25 feet of adjacent commercial land uses to the north of the project site along Shattuck Avenue. Table 22 shows the maximum expected noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors based on the combined use of construction equipment anticipated to be used concurrently during each phase of construction.

Table 22 Maximum Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase Estimated Noise Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receptors (dBA Leq) Construction Phase Equipment 25 feet 100 feet 300 feet 500 feet

Demolition Backhoe, Dozer, Excavator, Saw 89 77 68 63

Site Backhoe, Dozer, Grader 89 77 67 63 Preparation

Grading Backhoe, Dozer, Excavator, Grader, 91 79 69 65 Saw

Building Air Compressor, Aerial Lift, Backhoe, 91 79 70 65 Construction Crane, Forklift, Generator, Welder

Paving Backhoe, Cement Mixer, Paver, 91 79 69 65 Roller

Source: FTA 2006 and 2012. See Appendix D for equipment noise impact data sheets and assumptions.

Environmental Impact Report 135 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

The estimated construction noise levels shown in Table 22 do not take into account the fact that equipment is typically dispersed in various areas of the site in both time and space. Due to site and equipment limitations, only a limited amount of equipment can operate near a given location at a particular time. In addition, the noise levels shown in Table 22 for various phases of construction are representative of worst-case conditions, since it is assumed that all the equipment would operate simultaneously and continuously for at least 80 percent of the work day. Intervening buildings between construction equipment and noise-sensitive receptors also would reduce exposure to construction noise below the levels shown in Table 22. Therefore, this analysis of construction noise impacts is highly conservative. At the nearest noise-sensitive receptor, Berkeley City College, the project would generate noise levels up to 77 dBA Leq during demolition and site preparation phases, and 79 dBA Leq during grading, building construction, and paving, assuming no attenuation of noise between source and receptor. However, the intervening Allston Way parking garage would act as a barrier to attenuate most construction noise received at the college. This six-level Allston Way parking garage would attenuate noise from the loudest equipment operating at ground level or below surface grade, such as dozers, excavators, and pavers. Functioning as a single “building row,” the parking garage would reduce exterior construction noise by an estimated 4.5 dBA (FTA 2006). After accounting for this building row, Berkeley City College would be subject to construction noise levels of up to about 75 dBA Leq. While the parking garage would not block noise from upper-floor construction, the loudest equipment supporting building construction would operate at ground level and would not generate as much noise as excavation and foundation work. In addition, exterior building materials at the Berkeley City College, which is of modern construction, would further reduce noise by about 25 dBA between the exterior and interior environments. Therefore, interior noise from construction activity would reach an estimated 50 dBA Leq. Table 22 shows that noise levels from construction would vary at other properties based on their distance to the project site. At the nearest commercial property to the north along Shattuck Avenue, estimated maximum noise levels during all construction phases would reach 91 dBA Leq. At the nearest existing residences, apartments at the Marsh Arts Center building, noise levels would approach 70 dBA Leq. The City’s standards for construction noise in commercial zones would apply at the above educational, commercial, and residential land uses because they are located in the Commercial-Downtown Mixed Use zoning district.2 Maximum exterior noise levels received at these land uses during all phases of construction would reach or exceed the City’s 70 dBA Leq daytime standard for stationary sources in commercial zones during weekdays. In addition, construction noise would exceed the City’s 60 dBA Leq daytime standard for stationary sources on weekends and holidays if construction were to occur during these time periods. Therefore, impacts from construction equipment would be potentially significant. This project-specific impact is consistent with the DAP EIR’s finding that construction in the Downtown Area would intermittently expose residences and businesses to elevated noise levels throughout the planning horizon of the DAP.

2 Section 13.40.070(B)(7) of the Berkeley Municipal Code sets maximum sound levels for construction and demolition activities based on the zoning district in which affected properties are located. These noise standards are not based on the individual land use at an affected property. Different noise standards apply to properties in the R-1 and R-2 residential zones, in the R-3 and above multi-family residential zones, and in commercial and industrial zones.

136 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

MITIGATION MEASURES The project developer would be required to implement a project-specific noise reduction program as described in Mitigation Measure NOI-5 of the DAP EIR, which requires appropriate time limits for construction (7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on weekends or holidays), the use of available control technology such as equipment mufflers and temporary noise barriers, locating stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from adjoining sensitive receptors, notification of neighbors, and other measures.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-5 from the DAP EIR would reduce construction noise at the project site. However, as found in the DAP EIR for new construction in the entire Downtown Area, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the extended duration of construction (27-months), during which adjacent sensitive receptors would be exposed to construction noise that may exceed Berkeley noise standards for commercial zones. Threshold 2 Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impact N-2 Project construction would temporarily generate high vibration levels on and adjacent to the project site. Because construction would occur inside the hours allowed in the Berkeley Municipal Code, it would not generate vibration when people normally sleep. Construction vibration would not exceed levels that may cause structural damage to historic buildings. While vibration in excess of FTA thresholds may temporarily disturb daytime educational activities at Berkeley City College the use of administrative controls including notification of neighbors and appropriate scheduling of vibrating-generating activities would minimize exposure to perceptible vibration. The project would have a less than significant vibration impact.

Construction of the project over an expected 27-month period could intermittently generate strong vibration on and adjacent to the project site. Demolition of the existing two-story building on-site, excavation down to a depth of 41 feet below the existing grade, site grading, and paving would involve the use of construction equipment that could generate vibration. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the proposed foundation supporting the new mixed-use building would not require the use of pile drivers, which generate the highest vibration levels; caisson drilling would be used instead of pile drivers to install piles at the eastern end of the building. However, as discussed in the Historic Resources Technical Report prepared for the project by Architectural Resources Group (see Appendix C), construction activity would generate vibration near historic structures in the Downtown Area. Table 23 identifies vibration velocity levels at distances that correspond to various noise- sensitive receptors and historic buildings. A distance of 25 feet is representative of the distance to the Shattuck Hotel from the anticipated use of vibratory rollers to repave Allston Way, 50 feet is representative of the distance to the historic Shattuck Hotel from the project site, 100 feet corresponds to the distance to Berkeley City College, and 300 feet is the distance to apartments at the Marsh Arts Center building.

Environmental Impact Report 137 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Table 23 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment at Noise-Sensitive Receptors and Historic Buildings Estimated VdB at Nearest Sensitive Receptors

Equipment 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet 300 Feet Vibratory Roller 94 88 811 71 Caisson Drilling 87 80 74 63 Large Bulldozer 87 80 74 63 Loaded Trucks 86 79 72 62 Small Bulldozer 58 51 44 34

Sources: Federal Railroad Administration 2012. 1. It is assumed that the proposed garage may be paved with vibratory rollers, within 100 feet of Berkeley City College.

Based on Table 23, noise-sensitive receptors would experience the strongest vibration during paving (for vibratory rollers) and grading activity (for large bulldozers). The nearest historic building that may be vulnerable to damage from strong vibration, the Shattuck Hotel, would be subject to estimated vibration levels approaching 94 VdB during paving with vibratory rollers and 80 VdB from pile drilling and on-site grading with large bulldozers. The Berkeley City College building would experience estimated vibration levels of up to 81 VdB from vibratory rollers and 74 VdB from pile drilling and large bulldozers. Apartments at the Marsh Arts Center building could be subject to vibration levels of up to 71 VdB from vibratory rollers and 63 VdB from pile drilling and large bulldozers. Compliance with Section 13.40.070 of the Berkeley Municipal Code would restrict construction activities to daytime hours that are generally outside of normal sleeping hours, i.e., 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekdays and 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. Similarly, this timing restriction would limit the exposure of apartments at the Marsh Arts Center building to vibration. Therefore, vibration would not have significant adverse effects on guests of the Shattuck Hotel or on nearby residents. Vibration levels at Berkeley High School (500 feet away from the project site) and other more distant noise-sensitive receptors would not exceed the FTA’s thresholds of 72 VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep and 75 VdB for institutional land uses with primary daytime use.

Vibration levels of up to 81 VdB at the Berkeley City College would exceed the FTA threshold of 75 VdB for institutional land uses like schools with primary daytime use. The temporary use of vibratory rollers, caisson drilling, and large bulldozers may disturb classes and other educational activities at this college. As discussed in the DAP EIR, however, perceptible vibration would be minimized “by use of administrative controls such as notifying neighbors of scheduled construction activities and scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce vibration to hours with least potential to affect nearby businesses.” Notification of Berkeley City College and appropriate scheduling of construction hours would reduce the impact from perceptible vibration to less than significant. Table 24 shows vibration levels at the nearest historic buildings, in terms of in/sec PPV. As discussed above, the 25-foot distance corresponds to the distance from paving activity on Allston Way to the Shattuck Hotel, 50 feet represents the distance from on-site site grading activity to the Shattuck Hotel, and 150 feet approximates the distance from the project site

138 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration to the F.W. Foss Co. Building (140 feet away) and Elks Lodge (160 feet away) (ARG 2016; see Appendix C).

Table 24 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment at Historic Buildings Approximate in/sec PPV at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors

Equipment 25 Feet 50 Feet 150 Feet Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.098 0.029 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.042 0.012 Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.012 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.035 0.011 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000

Sources: FTA 2006, Caltrans 2004.

As shown in Table 24, vibration levels at the Shattuck Hotel would reach an estimated 0.210 in/sec PPV during use of vibratory rollers on Allston Way, which would not exceed the Caltrans threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for frequent intermittent sources of vibration. Vibration levels at the F.W. Foss Co. Building and Elks Lodge would reach an estimated 0.029 in/sec which would not exceed the Caltrans threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for frequent intermittent sources of vibration. Therefore, although the Historic Resources Technical Report for the project (ARG 2016; see Appendix C) identifies excavation-related soil movement and ground vibration as a concern with respect to the Shattuck Hotel’s foundations, vibration levels would not be expected to cause structural damage to historic buildings based on the Caltrans threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for frequent intermittent sources of vibration. Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, also discusses the potential effects of vibration on the Shattuck Hotel and other nearby historic buildings. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation is required.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION This impact would be less than significant without mitigation.

Thresholds 1 and 3 Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impact N-3 On-site activities during operation of the project would generate noise that may periodically be audible to noise-sensitive receptors near the project site. On-site noise sources would include stationary equipment, such as rooftop ventilation and heating systems, and delivery and trash hauling trucks. However, on-site operational noise would not exceed ambient noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, on-site operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Report 139 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

The project would introduce new residential and commercial land uses near existing noise- sensitive receptors, including Berkeley City College, Berkeley High School, and apartments at the Marsh Arts Center building. New on-site noise sources associated with operation of the project would be typical of large residential and retail commercial developments, such as rooftop-mounted heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment; and trucks for deliveries and trash hauling.

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Equipment Based on the proposed roof plan shown in Figure 16, rooftop-mounted HVAC equipment located in mechanical rooms would be placed as close as approximately 125 feet from Berkeley City College, 350 feet from apartments at the Marsh Arts Center building, and 525 feet from Berkeley High School. Noise levels from commercial HVAC equipment can reach 100 dBA Leq at a distance of three feet (USEPA 1971). Typically, the shielding and location of HVAC units reduces noise levels to no greater than 55 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the source (EPA 1971). Assuming that noise from this point source attenuates by 6 dBA per doubling of distance, estimated noise levels from HVAC equipment would not exceed 47 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet, 38 dBA Leq at 350 feet, and 35 dBA Leq at 525 feet. The measured ambient noise levels serves as the applicable exterior noise standard in the project area pursuant to Section 13.40.050 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. As shown in Table 17, the measured ambient noise level in the project vicinity is approximately 65-68 dBA. The estimated noise level from HVAC equipment’s at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors would not exceed these measured ambient noise levels, and would therefore be less than significant.

Delivery and Trash Hauling Trucks Because the applicant would not be required to provide an off-street loading space for the proposed 10,000 square feet of commercial space, pursuant to Section 23E.32 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, this analysis assumes that delivery trucks may idle on Allston Way near the project site. Trash hauling trucks would also serve the project site from Allston Way. Maximum noise levels generated by passages of medium duty delivery trucks generally range from 61 to 70 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet, depending on the speed at which the truck is driving (Olson 1972). The average noise level for a single idling truck generally ranges from 72 to 77 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. Based on an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, the maximum anticipated noise levels from delivery and hauling trucks on Allston Way at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors, would range from 56 to 61 dBA Leq at 165 feet (Berkeley City College), 50 to 55 dBA Leq at 300 feet (apartments at the Marsh Arts Center), and 46 to 51 dBA Leq at 500 feet (Berkeley High School). As shown in Table 17, measured peak-hour ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are approximately 65-68 dBA Leq. The estimated noise levels from delivery and trash hauling trucks at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor would not exceed these measured ambient noise levels. Therefore, the impact from on-site noise generated by delivery and trash hauling trucks would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation is required.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION This impact would be less than significant without mitigation.

140 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

Thresholds 1 and 3 Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impact N-4 Vehicle trips associated with operation of the project would increase traffic volumes on Downtown Area roadways, resulting in greater traffic noise audible to existing noise-sensitive uses. However, the increase of vehicle trips from the project would be incremental and would not result in a substantial traffic noise increase. Therefore, traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. The DAP EIR found that new development in the Downtown Area would increase traffic noise levels substantially along Shattuck Avenue between University Avenue and Allston Way, and along Allston Way between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street. As anticipated by the DAP EIR, the proposed mixed-use development would generate vehicle trips that increase traffic volumes on these and other road segments in the Downtown Area. Table 25 shows the net increase in roadway traffic volumes along the studied roadway segments with the greatest increase in traffic for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, according to traffic data in the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates in June 2017 (see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Although the demolition of the existing commercial building would eliminate trips associated with existing land uses, the proposed land uses would result in a net increase in vehicle trips. Project- generated traffic on nearby roadways would incrementally increase noise at nearby existing noise-sensitive receptors.

Environmental Impact Report 141 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Table 25 Increase in Existing Area Roadway Traffic Volumes with Project during A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours Existing Peak Net Increase in Peak- Percentage Roadway Segment Hour Trips Hour Trips from Project Increase in Trips A.M. Peak Hour Shattuck Avenue: Center 1,935 4 0.2% Street to Allston Way Shattuck Avenue: Allston 1,599 10 0.6% Way to Bancroft Way Allston Way: Shattuck 153 2 1.3% Avenue to Oxford Street Allston Way: Milvia 315 26 8.3% Street to Shattuck Avenue Allston Way: Martin 451 14 3.1% Luther King Jr. Way to Milvia Street P.M. Peak Hour Shattuck Avenue: Center 2,088 5 0.2% Street to Allston Way Shattuck Avenue: Allston 1,825 12 0.7% Way to Bancroft Way Allston Way: Shattuck 167 4 2.4% Avenue to Oxford Street Allston Way: Milvia 411 14 3.4% Street to Shattuck Avenue Allston Way: Martin 479 16 3.3% Luther King Jr. Way to Milvia Street Source: Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist.

As shown in Table 25, the project would generate the highest estimated increase in traffic volume on Allston Way: 8.3 percent for the segment between Milvia Street and Shattuck Avenue during the A.M. peak hour. As discussed under Methodology and Significance Thresholds, a 10 percent increase in vehicle traffic would result in an increase in traffic noise of approximately 0.4 dBA Leq. Because the project would increase traffic volumes on nearby streets by less than 10 percent, it would not increase traffic noise by more than 0.4 dBA Leq (roughly equivalent to 0.4 dBA Ldn in an urban setting). This screening analysis indicates that the project would not increase traffic noise by greater than the DAP EIR’s threshold of 4 dBA Ldn in residential areas or mixed-use areas with residential units.

While the DAP EIR focused on the exposure of residences to traffic noise, traffic on the road segments shown in Table 25 also affects the acoustic setting of Berkeley High School. This public school fronts on Allston Way between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Milvia Street. Berkeley High School may be considered a noise-sensitive receptor during school hours because of the need for quiet to promote learning in the classroom environment. However, as shown in Table 25, the project would only increase traffic volumes on the adjacent segment of Allston Way by an estimated 3.1 percent during A.M. peak hours and 3.3 percent during P.M. peak hours. This incremental increase in traffic would not substantially

142 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration increase exterior noise at the school from traffic. Furthermore, outdoor activity areas such as patios, commons, and athletic fields on the campus are separated from Allston Way by intervening school buildings that would block roadway noise.

Therefore, the project would not substantially increase the exposure of existing noise- sensitive receptors to traffic noise. Although the DAP EIR anticipated that new development in the Downtown Area would cause a significant impact from increased traffic noise levels, the noise increase from new vehicle traffic associated with this specific project would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation is required. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION This impact would be less than significant without mitigation. Threshold 1 Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance. Impact N-5 New residential units on the project site would be subject to noise levels in excess of the City of Berkeley noise compatibility guidelines. However, sound attenuation techniques would reduce ambient noise in the residential units to below the City’s standard of 45 dBA Ldn, ensuring that this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

As noted above in the Setting, an analysis of noise exposure to new residents is provided here for informational purposes only because the courts (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust et al. v. City of Los Angeles) have found that, as an impact of the environment on the project, it is not required for CEQA compliance. The project would locate new residences in an area exposed to excessive noise levels. As shown in Table 17, the existing noise levels in the project vicinity range from 65.6 dBA to 67.8 dBA Leq during P.M. peak-hour traffic. As described in Section 2.1, in urban areas near heavy traffic, the peak hourly Leq is typically 2-4 dBA lower than the daily Ldn or CNEL. Therefore, this analysis estimates that Ldn in the vicinity of the project site ranges from 68 dBA to 72 dBA. Therefore, proposed residences on the project site would experience noise levels that exceed the City’s normally acceptable level of 60 dBA Ldn for new residential land uses. Because modern building construction techniques typically reduce interior ambient noise by about 25 dBA, new residences on the project site may be exposed to interior noise levels in excess of the City’s 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard described in Impact NOI-1 of the DAP EIR (72 dBA - 25 dBA = 47 dBA). Therefore, impacts on new noise-sensitive receptors would be potentially significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES Because the ambient noise environment exceeds the City’s 70 dBA Ldn exterior noise standard, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 in the DAP EIR requires the provision of forced-air mechanical ventilation so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. In addition, Mitigation Measure N-5 would implement the programmatic performance standards in the DAP EIR Mitigation Measure NOI-1 for reducing noise transmission by exterior building materials.

Environmental Impact Report 143 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

N-5 Sound Insulation The applicant shall install exterior building materials with sufficient Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings to reduce interior noise levels in habitable rooms to below 45 dBA Ldn, as required by California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Section 1207.4. All residential windows, exterior doors, and exterior wall assemblies shall meet the STC 30 rating to ensure the adequate attenuation of noise at a range of frequencies.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The provision of forced-air mechanical ventilation, enabling new residents to retain adequate air quality with windows closed, and the installation of residential windows, exterior doors, and exterior wall assemblies would substantially reduce interior noise in habitable rooms. Exterior materials with an STC 30 rating would reduce exterior noise at a 500 Hz frequency by approximately 30 dBA in the interior environment. This STC rating is calculated for specific materials in a laboratory setting by measuring sound transmission loss in 1/3 octave increments between 125 Hz and 4,000 Hz. Although STC 30-rated materials would not perform equally at all frequencies of ambient noise, they would reduce overall exterior noise of up to 72 dBA Ldn by about 30 dBA Ldn. The resulting interior noise level of about 42 dBA Ldn would meet the City’s standard of 45 dBA Ldn. Therefore, the impact of exposing new residents to excessive noise would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1 in the DAP EIR and N-5 in this EIR. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project and related projects in the area, as identified in Table 7 in Section 3, Environmental Setting, would generate temporary noise during construction. Construction activities on the related projects in the area would generate similar noise levels as the project. Construction noise and vibration is localized and rapidly attenuates within an urban environment. In an urbanized environment construction noise rapidly attenuates, and it is anticipated that construction of other projects would not be occurring at the same time and sufficiently close to the project site to result in a cumulative impact. In addition, all projects in the Downtown Area would need to comply with construction noise mitigation included in the DAP EIR, which would lessen cumulative construction noise in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not contribute considerably to temporary cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts.

Traffic noise impacts associated with cumulative development through the year 2040 would incrementally increase noise levels along roadways. As discussed in Impact N-4, Berkeley High School is a noise-sensitive receptor located along Allston Way between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Milvia Street. The approved 2211 Harold Way Mixed-Use Project also would add residences with balconies facing Allston Way between Shattuck Avenue and Milvia Street.

Table 26 shows the project’s cumulative contribution to traffic volumes on nearby road segments.

144 Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

Table 26 Cumulative Contribution to Area Roadway Traffic Levels during A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours in Future Year 2040 Cumulative + Percent of Project Increase Percentage Cumulative Existing Peak in Peak Increase from Increase Roadway Segment Hour (trips) Hour Trips Cumulative Trips Due to Project A.M. Peak Hour Shattuck Avenue: 1,935 343 17.7% 1.2% Center Street to Allston Way Shattuck Avenue: 1,599 354 22.1% 2.8% Allston Way to Bancroft Way Allston Way: 153 13 8.5% 15.4% Shattuck Avenue to Oxford Street Allston Way: Milvia 315 89 28.3% 29.2% Street to Shattuck Avenue Allston Way: Martin 451 188 41.7% 7.4% Luther King Jr. Way to Milvia Street P.M. Peak Hour Shattuck Avenue: 2,088 238 11.4% 2.1% Center Street to Allston Way Shattuck Avenue: 1,825 218 11.9% 5.5% Allston Way to Bancroft Way Allston Way: 167 66 39.5% 6.1% Shattuck Avenue to Oxford Street Allston Way: Milvia 411 118 28.7% 11.9% Street to Shattuck Avenue Allston Way: Martin 479 149 31.1% 10.7% Luther King Jr. Way to Milvia Street Source: Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist.

As shown in Table 26, cumulative growth in combination with the project would increase traffic volumes during peak hours by up to an estimated 39.5 percent on Allston Way and 22.1 percent on Shattuck Avenue. A 20 percent increase would raise traffic noise by about 0.8 dBA, and a 40 percent increase would result in an approximately 1.5 dBA increase in traffic noise. Based on the estimated growth in cumulative traffic, traffic noise would increase by less than 2 dBA on Allston Way and could increase by approximately 1 dBA on Shattuck Avenue. However, cumulative growth in traffic would not generate noise levels exceeding the DAP EIR’s cumulative threshold of 4 dBA Ldn or more over existing conditions. Therefore, the cumulative traffic noise impact would be less than significant, and the project would not contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact. Cumulative development would also add sources of on-site operational (non-traffic) noise in the project vicinity. It is expected that new residential, commercial, and mixed-use

Environmental Impact Report 145 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project development in the Downtown Area would involve the operation of HVAC equipment and loading and trash hauling trucks. As discussed in the DAP EIR, typical noise levels generated by loading and unloading activity would be similar to noise levels generated by trucks on local roadways. Although the operation of mechanical equipment such as HVAC units would have the potential to expose Downtown Area residents to excessive noise, the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 from the DAP EIR would ensure that commercial development complies with the City’s noise standards. Therefore, cumulative development would have a less than significant impact from on-site operational noise after mitigation. It follows that the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.

146 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

4.5 Transportation/Traffic

This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed mixed-use project on the local circulation system, based primarily on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the project by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Setting Existing Street Network Brief descriptions of the roadways within the TIA’s study area are provided below.

Regional Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate Highway 580/80 (I-580/I-80), Interstate 980 (I-980) and State Route 24 (SR 24), State Route 13 and 123.

Arterial Shattuck Avenue is a two- to four-lane major north-south arterial that extends from Telegraph Avenue in Oakland to Rose Street in North Berkeley. Shattuck Avenue splits into two one-way streets between Center Street and University Avenue, with three lanes in each direction and metered parking on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. The City plans to reconfigure Shattuck Avenue from Allston Way through the Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue intersection. The project would involve reconfiguring the west (southbound) leg of Shattuck into a two-way street, among other changes. These planned changes are discussed further below under Methodology and Thresholds of Significance. Martin Luther King Jr Way (formerly known as Grove Street) is a four-lane major north-south arterial in Berkeley and Oakland. The street runs from Embarcadero West in Oakland to Hopkins Street in North Berkeley, where it changes names to The Alameda. In the vicinity of the Plan Area, Martin Luther King Jr. Way consists of two travel lanes in each direction with left-turn lanes at major intersections; parallel parking is generally provided on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. University Avenue is a four-lane, divided major east-west arterial with dedicated turn lanes at major intersections. University Avenue provides a direct connection between Downtown Berkeley and I-80/I-580 and the Berkeley Marina. Metered parallel parking is generally provided on both sides of University Avenue. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour.

Local Addison Street is an east-west, two-lane local street that extends from Oxford Street and the UC Berkeley campus in the east to Bolivar Drive and the Berkeley Marina in the west. On- street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Center Street is an east-west, two-lane local street that extends from Oxford Street and the UC Berkeley campus in the east to Martin Luther King Jr Way in the west. On-street parking is provided on both sides of the street and Class II Bicycle Lanes are provided on one block, between Shattuck Avenue and Milvia Street. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour.

Environmental Impact Report 147 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Allston Way is an east-west two-lane local street that extends from Oxford Street and UC Berkeley Campus in the east, crosses Strawberry Creek Park as a pedestrian and bicycle only path, and continues from Bonar Street to its termination west of Fourth Street in the west. On-street parking is provided on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Kittredge Street is an east-west two-lane local street that extends about two blocks from Oxford Street and UC Berkeley Campus in the east to Milvia Street in the west. On-street parallel parking is generally provided on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Bancroft Way is an east-west two-lane collector street with one lane in each direction west of Shattuck Avenue. East of Shattuck Avenue, Bancroft Way is a one-way street with two westbound lanes. On-street parallel parking is generally provided on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Milvia Street is a north-south two-lane collector street and is designated as Alameda County Bicycle Route 35. South of Allston Way there is a Class II Bicycle Lane in each direction. North of Allston Way, Milvia Street is a Class III Bicycle Route. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street, with the exception of the west side of the street between Allston Way and Bancroft Way, where a loading zone is provided adjacent to Berkeley High School. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Oxford-Fulton Street is a north-south street that runs along the west side of UC Berkeley Campus from Indian Rock Avenue in the north, changes names from Oxford Street to Fulton Street at Bancroft Way, and continues to Prince Street in the south. Within the study area, Oxford Street is a four-lane divided street between Hearst Avenue and Bancroft Way with a Class II striped bike lane in the southbound direction and a Class III bikeway with shared lane markings (greenback sharrows) in the northbound direction. Between Bancroft Way and Durant Avenue, Fulton Street is a three lane street with one northbound lane and two southbound lanes and a Class IV cycle track, or protected bike lane, in the southbound direction. South of Durant Avenue, Fulton Street transitions into a one-way two-lane southbound street with a Class IV cycle track (parking protected bike lane) between Durant Avenue and Channing Way. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour.

Truck Routes Berkeley Municipal Code Section 14.56.060 requires drivers of heavy-duty commercial vehicles weighing seven or more tons to use the City of Berkeley designated truck route system. The designated routes within the study area are Shattuck Avenue and University Avenue. Allston Way has a three-ton truck prohibition between Sacramento Street and Martin Luther King Jr Way. All north-south streets between Sacramento Street and Martin Luther King Jr Way have three-ton truck prohibitions between Dwight Way and University Avenue.

Emergency Vehicle Routes The City of Berkeley General Plan identifies emergency access and evacuation network routes. Emergency access and evacuation routes in the vicinity of the project site include University Avenue; Addison Street, Center Street, and Allston Way from Oxford Street to Martin Luther King Jr Way; Kittredge Street from Oxford Street to Milvia Street; Bancroft Way; Martin Luther King Jr Way; Milvia Street from University Avenue to Dwight Way; Shattuck Avenue; and Oxford Street from Hearst Avenue to Bancroft Way.

148 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

Existing Public Transit Local, Rapid, and Transbay fixed-route bus and shuttle service is provided by Alameda- Contra Costa County Transit (AC Transit). Regional commuter rail service is provided by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Other regional transit service, such as Amtrak Capitol Corridor passenger rail, is accessible by transferring to and from AC Transit. A detailed description of the existing public transit system in the vicinity of the project site can be found in the TIA (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist)

Alameda County Transit (AC Transit) The nearest AC Transit bus stops are located at the corner of Allston Way and Shattuck Avenue. Other nearby stops are located along Shattuck Avenue, Center Street, and University Avenue. Transit activity is concentrated along the Shattuck Avenue and University Avenue corridors with heavy transfer activity from BART to AC Transit during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Existing transit routes that serve the project site are summarized in Table 3 of the TIA (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist).

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) BART is the regional rapid transit provider that connects Berkeley to other parts of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Francisco, and northern San Mateo County. The BART lines that serve the North Berkeley and Downtown Berkeley BART Stations, nearest the project site, include the Richmond-Warm Springs and Richmond-Daly City/SFO/Millbrae lines. The project site is located adjacent to the Downtown Berkeley BART Station, which has station entrances on the west side of Shattuck Avenue at Allston Way and Center Street. The characteristics of BART lines serving the Berkeley Station are summarized in Table 4 of the TIA and the number of passengers entering and exiting the Downtown Berkeley BART Station during the weekday, Saturday, and Sunday are summarized in Table 5 of the TIA.

Other Transit Operators The Lawrence Berkeley National Labs provides free shuttle service for LBNL employees and visitors between UC Berkeley/Berkeley BART Station and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. The nearest stop to the project site is located on Shattuck Avenue (east), south of Addison Street. In general, the LBNL shuttles operate on a fixed route and schedule between 6:30 AM and 9:30 PM, Monday through Friday. BEAR Transit, operated by UC Berkeley, provides transit service to the UC Berkeley community and connects the UC Berkeley campus to the Richmond Field Station, Lawrence Hall of Science and UC Botanical Garden, and also provides several perimeter routes around the downtown campus. The nearest BEAR Transit stop to the project site is located on Shattuck Avenue (east), north of Addison Street. In general, the shuttles operate on a fixed route and schedule between 6:45 AM and 7:30 PM, Monday through Friday. The Alta Bates Shuttle, operated by Alta Bates, provides free weekday shuttle service from the Milvia outpatient pharmacy parking lot (2500 Milvia Street) to the Herrick Campus (2001 Dwight Way), and then to the Alta Bates Campus. The shuttle runs every 20 minutes between the hours of 4:30 AM and 9:00 PM. On-call shuttle service is available between the hours of 9:00 PM and 2:00 AM.

Environmental Impact Report 149 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions Existing pedestrian and bicycle conditions in the vicinity of the project site are summarized below. A detailed description can be found in the TIA (Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist).

Pedestrian Facilities and Activity Sidewalks are provided on all area streets and at the Berkeley BART station entrance. High- visibility crosswalk markings are provided at Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue, Milvia Street/University Avenue, and Milvia Street/Center Street. A concrete median pedestrian refuge island is provided along Shattuck Avenue. Generally moderate to high levels of pedestrian activity occur on the blocks adjacent the project site, with activity concentrated along Shattuck Avenue near the Berkeley BART station entrances. Periods of peak pedestrian activity coincide with the peak commute periods for school and work, while short peaks of pedestrian activity occur during BART train arrivals and during the Berkeley High School lunch period. Many pedestrians can be observed traveling to/from Berkeley High School, Washington Elementary School, and UC Berkeley campus, located two blocks to the west and east of the project site, respectively. Pedestrian counts are included in Section 2.5 of the TIA (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist).

Bicycle Facilities and Activity

Facility Classifications Caltrans designates four classes of bicycle facilities: Classes I, II, III, and IV. The Alameda County Transportation Commission has adopted a set of sub-classifications for each Caltrans’ classification. The City of Berkeley has adopted these classifications and sub- classifications, as detailed in Section 2.6 of the TIA (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Existing bicycle facilities in the study area are summarized below: Milvia Street is a north‐south Class IIIE Bicycle Boulevard that extends from Hopkins Street in the north to Russell Street in the south. Traffic calming treatments such as speed humps and bulbouts are present on the section between Cedar Street and University Avenue. Class IIA Bicycle Lanes are striped on Milvia Street from Allston Way to Channing Way. Oxford‐Fulton Street provides north‐south Class II Bicycle Lanes from Hearst Avenue in the north to Bancroft Way in the south and is a Class IVA Separated Bikeway from Bancroft Way in the north to Channing Way in the south. Hearst Avenue provides east‐west Class II Bicycle Lanes from Shattuck Avenue in the east to California Street in the west, where it connects to the Ohlone Greenway and California Street Bicycle Boulevard. Center Street provides east‐west Class II Bicycle Lanes from Milvia Street to Shattuck Avenue. Channing Way provides east‐west Class II Bicycle Lanes between Piedmont Avenue in the east to Martin Luther King Jr Way in the west and is a Class IIIB Bicycle Route west of Martin Luther King Jr Way.

150 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

Generally, low to moderate levels of bicycle activity occur on streets in the vicinity of the project site. Bicycle activity tends to concentrate on designated bike routes, such as Milvia Street. The highest levels of bicycle activity occur during the weekday AM peak hour at Milvia Street/Allston Way. Bicycle counts are included in the TIA (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Parking Conditions The project site is located adjacent to the Shattuck Avenue commercial corridor. There are several private parking facilities nearby, mostly serving employees and business customers. The City is currently replacing the Center Street Parking Garage, the one City-owned, public off‐street parking facility near the project site, with a new eight-level garage. These parking facilities provide a combination of reserved parking available at daily, monthly, or hourly rates. On‐street parking consists of time‐limited metered spaces located along both sides of most streets in the vicinity. In addition, the City of Berkeley uses parking meters to manage parking demand, particularly in commercial areas where parking availability and turnover facilitate customer access and convenience. Based on observations conducted during the weekday AM and PM peak periods in October and November, 2016, on‐ and off‐street parking is fairly well‐utilized within the study area. However, parking spaces were observed to be generally available throughout the day and overnight, within a two block radius of the project site (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Loading Conditions

Commercial Loading Delivery vehicles serving the Walgreens store on-site arrive throughout the day and include a mix of small delivery vans, single-unit box trucks, and tractor-trailers (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Smaller delivery vehicles (e.g., delivery vans and single-unit trucks) typically use available on-street parking spaces and service the vehicle through the store’s front entrance. Larger delivery vehicles (e.g., tractor-trailers) typically arrive during the early weekday morning hours and use the project site’s existing off-street loading dock. During weekday AM and PM peak periods on October 27 and November 3, 2016, loading and unloading activities were observed to take between 10 and 45 minutes per vehicle. The on-street commercial truck loading zone along the north side of Allston Way, east of the existing driveway to the project site, has been removed as a result of ongoing construction of the BART Plaza Project. The nearest currently available on-street commercial loading zone is located on the southwest corner of Allston Way and Harold Way, about 0.5 blocks from the project site. Delivery vehicles serving the project site and other nearby businesses were observed to use this dedicated space to complete loading activities. When this space was occupied, nearby on-street parking spaces were generally available for use by delivery vehicles. However, delivery vehicles were observed to pull into passenger loading zones (white curb) and red curb zones when on-street parking spaces were not available. Double- parking was not observed along Allston Way. Loading operations cause some congestion and delay to motor vehicles, buses, and bicycles as larger delivery vehicles pull into and away from the curb.

Environmental Impact Report 151 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Passenger Loading The nearest on-street passenger loading zone is located across from the project site on the south side of Allston Way, in front of the Shattuck Hotel. This passenger loading zone is about 60 feet in length and can accommodate up to three vehicles. During field observations, this white curb space was well utilized for pick-up and drop-off activities. Vehicles were observed to stop illegally and wait for extended periods of time for passengers arriving on BART. When the white curb space was occupied, vehicles were observed stopping and waiting in the red curb zone. Emergency Vehicle Access The nearest fire station (Berkeley Fire Station #2) is located at 2029 Berkeley Way, about 0.3 mile north of the project site. Emergency vehicles traveling from Fire Station #2 to the project site would exit the fire station onto Berkeley Way eastbound, make a right turn onto Shattuck Avenue, travel south for approximately 0.3 miles (through three traffic signals), and turn right onto Allston Way westbound. The total estimated travel time from Fire Station #2 is two minutes. The next‐nearest fire station (Berkeley Fire Department Main Station) is located at 2100 Martin Luther King Jr Way, about 0.4 mile west of the project site. Emergency vehicles traveling from the Main Station at 2100 Martin Luther King Jr Way could use one of multiple routes to access the Project site. Emergency vehicles could exit the fire station and travel north on Martin Luther King Jr Way, make a right turn on either Addison Street or University Avenue followed by another right turn onto Shattuck Avenue and turn right onto Allston Way westbound to reach the Project site. Alternatively, vehicles could exit the fire station and travel south on Martin Luther King Jr Way, make a left turn onto Center Street, continue eastbound on Center Street to Shattuck Avenue, turn right onto Shattuck Avenue followed by another right turn onto Allston Way to reach the Project site. The total estimated travel time from the Main Station is between three and five minutes, depending on the route and time of day. Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions, including traffic volumes and operations, as well as level of service (LOS) calculations, were analyzed at the following seven intersections where the project has the potential to affect intersection operations: 5 Martin Luther King Jr. Way/University Avenue; 6 Martin Luther King Jr. Way/Allston Way; 7 Milvia Street/Allston Way; 8 Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue; 9 Shattuck Avenue/Center Street; 10 Shattuck Avenue/Allston Way; and 11 Shattuck Avenue/Bancroft Way. These studied intersections are mapped in Figure 34.

152 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

Figure 34 Intersection Analysis Locations

Environmental Impact Report 153 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Regulatory Setting

Regional Regulations The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) coordinates transportation planning efforts throughout Alameda County and programs federal, state, regional, and local funding for project planning and implementation. Through its Congestion Management Program (CMP), ACTC oversees and monitors the operations and performance of roadways in the CMP network, which consist of freeways and major arterials that provide connectivity in the County. The Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP requires local jurisdictions to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed land use changes (i.e., General Plan amendments, and developments estimated to generate 100 or more net new PM peak hour automobile trips) on the CMP network. Based on the expected trip generation potential of the project (i.e., less than 100 peak hour vehicle trips), an ACTC CMP analysis of the project’s effect on CMP and Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) roadways is not required per the CMP Land Use Analysis Program.

Local Regulations

City of Berkeley General Plan (2003) The Transportation Element of the Berkeley General Plan (2003) contains the following policies and actions relevant to the project: . Policy T-4: Transit First Policy. Give priority to alternative transportation and transit over single-occupant vehicles on Transit Routes identified on the Transit Network map. . Policy T-6: Transportation Services Fee. Ensure that new development does not impact existing transportation services and facilities (see Policy LU-28). . 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 (see 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;  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; and,  No-fare shopper shuttles connecting all shopping districts throughout the city. . Policy T-12: Education and Enforcement. Support, and when possible require, education and enforcement programs to encourage carpooling and alternatives to

154 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

single-occupant automobile use, reduce speeding, and increase pedestrian, bicyclist, and automobile safety. . Policy T-14: Private Employers. Encourage private employers to reduce the demand for automobile travel through transportation demand management programs that include elements such as:  Trip reduction incentives such as Commuter Check and Eco-Pass;  Flexible work hours and telecommuting to reduce peak-hour commute congestion;  Carpool and vanpool incentives to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use;  Provision of mass transit pass/credit instead of free employee parking (parking "cash-out" programs);  Providing bicycle facilities;  Market pricing mechanisms for employee parking to reduce automotive use and discourage all-day parking;  Local hiring policies; and,  Numerical goals for trip reduction . Policy T-15: Local Hiring. Establish Berkeley residency as a preference for hiring, and encourage other public employers, institutions, and private employers to hire locally (see Policy ED-1). . 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 LOS to a level of insignificance. The number of transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists potentially affected will be considered when evaluating a degradation of LOS for motorists. . Policy T-19: Air Quality Impacts. Continue to encourage innovative technologies and programs such as clean-fuel, electric, and low-emission cars that reduce the air quality impacts of the automobile (see Policies EM-18 through EM-22).  Action A. Establish bicycle and low-emission vehicle preferred parking areas; and,  Action B. Install electric vehicle charging stations in all City-owned parking facilities downtown and at major parking facilities and employment centers. . Policy T-32: Shared Parking. Encourage Berkeley businesses and institutions to establish shared parking agreements, which would make the most efficient use of existing and new parking areas (see Policy ED-6). . Policy T-33: Disabled Parking and Passenger Zones. Ensure adequate disabled parking and passenger drop-off zones.  Action A. Require access to adequate disabled parking and passenger drop-off zones in all new commercial and residential developments. . Policy T-34: Downtown and Southside Parking Management. Manage the supply of Downtown and Southside public parking to discourage long-term all-day parking and increase the availability and visibility of short-term parking for local businesses (see Policy ED-6).  Action B. Improve signage and access to existing public parking, including UC lots open to the public, in the Downtown and in the Southside;

Environmental Impact Report 155 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

 Action C. Increase all-day parking rates, maintain lower parking rates for short-term parking, eliminate monthly parking passes, provide "cash-out" programs, and extend hours of operation in City garages;  Action D. Improve lighting and security in Downtown garages to encourage better utilization during off-peak hours; and,  Action F. Limit employee parking based on need for a vehicle on the job, number of passengers carried, disability, and/or lack of alternative public transportation. . Policy T-35: Public Parking Supply in the Downtown and Southside. Prioritize implementation of improved parking conditions in the Downtown and Southside through better utilization of existing parking and through implementation of policies to reduce demand for parking. Allow enough time for these improvements to be in place to demonstrate their effectiveness before considering public expenditures on construction of additional City-owned public parking spaces in the area. Action A. Reduce demand for parking by implementing specific actions in the Southside/ Downtown Transportation Demand Management Study (see Tier One, Tier Two, and Tier Three programs and actions in the TDM Study) particularly taking actions to improve transit services and implementing an Eco-Pass program (see Policy T-3), and implementing commuter, shopper, and visitor shuttles (see Policy T-2); and,  Action B. Increase availability of existing parking, including UC parking, to shoppers, visitors, and other short-term users (see Policy T-34). . Policy T-39: High-Tech Parking. To make the most efficient use of available land, encourage consideration of high-tech computerized parking (e.g., lifts and or "robotics") when replacing existing public parking or when providing off-street parking for multi- family residential projects. . Policy T-40: Parking Impacts. When considering parking impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act 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:  Action C. Ensure that sidewalks are kept in good repair and are level, with a suitable grade for pedestrians and wheelchairs. Discourage, and when possible prevent, new developments from creating uncomfortably steep grades; and,  Action D. Ensure adequate unobstructed sidewalk passage by appropriate placement of street furniture and amenities and prevention of obstruction of travel ways by such items as advertisement signs, merchandise, and utility boxes. . Policy T-51: Pedestrian Priority. When addressing competing demands for sidewalk space, the needs of the pedestrian shall be the highest priority.

City of Berkeley Downtown Area Plan (2012) The Access Element of the Berkeley Downtown Area Plan (2012) contains the following goals, policies, and actions relevant to the project.

156 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

. Goal AC-1: Improve options that increase access to downtown on foot, by bicycle, and via transit. Make living, working, and visiting downtown as car-free as possible.  Policy AC-1.1: Street Modifications. Modify Downtown’s streets and street network to better serve the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit (see policies under Goal OS-1). While recognizing that automobiles will be an important transportation mode for the foreseeable future, reduce and avoid negative impacts from the private automobile on pedestrians, transit, and bicycles (see policies under Goals AC-2, AC- 4 and AC-5). Development projects that are adjacent to designated street improvements should finance a fair-share of these improvements as condition of project approval.  c) Implement street improvements that benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. Reallocate parts of public rights-of-way that give unneeded capacity to motor vehicles and can be repurposed to yield pedestrian, bicycle, and/or ecological benefits. Travel lanes should not be eliminated until analysis has determined that safety, transit, and traffic operations can be adequately addressed, however the DAP EIR has indicated that traffic lane reductions appear to be feasible in the following locations: . Shattuck Avenue and Shattuck Square between University Avenue and Allston; . University Avenue between Shattuck Square and Oxford; . Hearst Avenue between Shattuck and Oxford; and, . Closing Center Street to regular traffic between Shattuck and Oxford.  d) Adopt a Downtown Streets & Open Space Improvement Plan that establishes policies and actions relating to street improvements that can occur throughout the Downtown Area (such as sidewalk bulb-outs, suitable travel lane widths, bicycle parking, street trees, street lighting, furnishings, etc.), as well as major projects (including Center Street Plaza, Center Street Greenway and Civic Center Park, Shattuck Square, University Avenue Gateway, Shattuck Avenue, and Hearst Street) (see Policy OS-1.1).  f) Once the design of improvements is conceptually approved, private and public developers adjacent to designed improvements should implement them as part of the development project, whenever feasible and as described in Policies (see Policies LU-2 and OS-3).  g) Engage merchants, property owners, transit agencies, the University and other stakeholders to emphasize Downtown as a shared destination. Work with AC Transit and other transit agencies to evaluate the impact of proposed street and street network changes on transit vehicle operations, and to identify suitable bus stop and layover locations (such as to replace those displaced by a new Center Street Plaza). Bus stops and layover locations should not degrade transit service, and should not negatively impact pedestrian environments.  Policy AC-1.2: Single-Occupant Vehicles. Discourage the use of single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) by commuters to Downtown and encourage commuting with transit, ridesharing, bicycles, and on foot.

Environmental Impact Report 157 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

 a) Require larger development projects to provide ridesharing parking and support their on-going operations. Strive to serve subareas where ridesharing locations are not convenient by identifying potential ridesharing locations and working with ridesharing providers.  Policy AC-1.3: Alternative Modes & Transportation Demand Management (TDM). New development and on-going programs should reduce Downtown car use, support alternative travel modes, and consolidate publicly-accessible parking facilities and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs (see Policy LU- 2.1).  a) A fee requirement should be established to support alternative modes (i.e. transit, walking & bicycling) and Transportation Demand Management programs. Parking requirements for new development may be reduced by paying an in lieu fee into a fund to enhance transit, which might be contained within the Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP); in lieu payments for parking should be encouraged; and,  d) Require that new buildings and substantial additions support alternative transportation as identified in Policy LU-2.1c. The City should help small businesses and smaller development projects qualify for discounted transit passes, such as by working directly with AC Transit or by encouraging the formation of an association assigned with this mission. . Goal AC-2: Give pedestrians priority in downtown, and make walking downtown safe, attractive, easy and convenient for people of all ages and abilities.  Policy AC-2.1: Pedestrian Safety and Amenities. Improve the safety, attractiveness and convenience of pedestrian routes within Downtown – and to and from surrounding areas. Encourage a wide range of pedestrian amenities to meet the needs and interests of those who live and work in and near Downtown (see policies under Goal HD-4).  a) Adopt a Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan with policies and implementing actions, including provisions for adequate sidewalk width, shortening pedestrian crossing distances at intersections, and new mid-block pedestrian crosswalks where justified by high volumes of pedestrians and a long distance between intersections;  b) To reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, minimize driveway curb cuts to the extent feasible, and where they must occur: avoid making driveways too wide or creating uneven surfaces where driveways cross sidewalks; and,  c) Maintain sidewalks, crosswalks, plazas, and other pedestrian environments so that they are safe, clean and in good repair.  Policy AC-2.2: Universal Access. Provide safe access to all Downtown streets and pathways for people of all abilities.  a) Use regulation and incentives to require and/or encourage universal accessibility up-grades for private businesses when significant modifications to structures are made. . Goal AC-3: Provide parking to meet the needs of Downtown, while discouraging commuter parking and encouraging motorists to park their cars and experience Downtown as a pedestrian.

158 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

 Policy AC-3.2: New Parking. Provide sufficient parking for expected growth by evaluating future parking needs, funding parking facilities, and promoting alternatives to the car. In addition, replace on-street parking lost to street and other improvements within off-street garages. Consolidate parking in shared facilities to the extent possible  d) Prohibit new driveways on Shattuck and University Avenues in Downtown except when it can be demonstrated that no other site-access options exist or where other alternatives would have greater negative impacts; and,  g) New development should provide effective parking and TDM measures (see Policies LU- 2.1 and AC-1.3).  Policy AC-3.3: Pedestrian Impacts. Locate and design new parking in ways that minimize negative impacts upon the pedestrian quality of Downtown (see Policy HD- 4.1).  a) With new development, discourage parking on-site to increase space available for street-level retail and activity;  b) Minimize driveway curb cuts to make Downtown more safe and attractive for pedestrians. Locate, design, and size entrances and exits to parking to minimize impact on the pedestrian realm, such as through traffic management, exit mirrors, and warning lights; and,  d) Discourage use of more than 25 percent of a building’s street-level area for parking. Place parking below grade when feasible. When below-grade parking is deemed infeasible, above-grade parking structures should face streets and public open spaces in ways that support pedestrian safety and activity. Surface parking should be prohibited along streets. . Goal AC-4: Promote transit as an efficient, attractive choice and as a primary mode of motor-vehicle travel.  Policy AC-4.1: Transit Priority. Promote transit as the primary mode for commuting to and from Downtown, and give transit priority over personal vehicles. Encourage use of transit by area businesses, institutions, and residents.  a) Require that new development provides bus passes and promotes use of alternative modes (see Policies LU-2.1 and AC-1.3);  b) Work collaboratively with Downtown employers, institutions, and organizations (including major employers such as the City of Berkeley, UC Berkeley, Berkeley Unified School District, Berkeley City College, Berkeley Unified School District, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Alta Bates Medical Center) to adopt aggressive TDM programs and facilities that reduce automobile use by staff, faculty and students; and,  c) Require that Downtown businesses provide bus passes to employees and pre-tax com-mute-by-transit vouchers. Work with businesses and institutions to expand guaranteed-ride-home programs for employees who use transit. Encourage Downtown employers to provide other subsidies for bicycling, walking and public transit use. Encourage Berkeley Unified School District and Peralta Community College to participate in such programs or to establish their own programs to reduce automobile use by faculty and staff.

Environmental Impact Report 159 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

 Policy AC-4.2: Attractive Transit. Make transit an efficient and attractive choice by improving speed, reliability, pedestrian safety, and comfort. Improve transit options and give transit priority over personal vehicles.  c) Work with AC Transit and shuttle providers to identify suitable bus stops and layover locations. Consider the integration of bus facilities within City, University, and/or private projects; and,  d) Avoid bus stop and layover locations that interrupt pedestrian movement or block clear views of sidewalks, plazas or storefronts. Give careful consideration to trade-offs between facilitating bus turning movements and other operations versus reductions in on-street parking supply, landscaping, and sidewalks. . Goal AC-5: Maintain and enhance safe, attractive and convenient bicycle circulation within Downtown, and to and from surrounding areas, for people of all ages and abilities. Promote bicycling Downtown.  Policy AC-5.2: Bicycle Parking. Increase the availability of convenient, secure and at-tractive short- and long-term bicycle parking throughout Downtown.  a) Increase the availability of secured bicycle parking throughout Downtown, particularly in areas of high use, including bicycle parking options that are sheltered and/or attended;  b) Increase availability of bicycle racks throughout Downtown, especially where parking meter poles are removed; and,  e) Require the provision of secure bicycle parking facilities by new development projects (and major renovations), both public and private.  Policy AC-5.3: Bike Sharing. Promote convenient “bike sharing” options (i.e., short- term bike rentals) and their use by employees, residents, and visitors – especially near BART.

Downtown Area Plan (DAP) EIR The DAP EIR discusses transportation/traffic impacts on pages 4-270 through 4-325. The DAP EIR analysis for year 2030 buildout of the Plan assumed that the Downtown Area would accommodate up to 3,100 new residential units and up to 1,000,000 square feet of non-residential floor space (the vast majority of which would be related to University of California, Berkeley, projects). As discussed in the DAP EIR regulations section above, the DAP EIR examined a range of potential impacts related to transportation and traffic, including unacceptable level of service (LOS), and found potential impacts under Year 2030 DAP conditions at the following intersections: . Martin Luther King Jr. Way/Hearst Avenue (PM Peak – LOS F; same as 2030 Baseline, but delay increases by more than 3 seconds) . Martin Luther King Jr. Way/Allston Way (PM Peak – LOS F) . Milvia Street/University Avenue (AM Peak – LOS F; PM Peak – LOS E) . Milvia Street/Center Street (PM Peak – LOS F; same as 2030 Baseline, but delay increases by more than 3 seconds) . Shattuck Avenue/Center Street (PM Peak – LOS F; 2030 Baseline was LOS E)

160 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

. Shattuck Avenue/Allston Way (PM Peak – LOS F) . Shattuck Avenue/Bancroft Way (PM Peak – LOS E) . Shattuck Avenue/Durant Avenue (PM Peak – LOS F) . Oxford Street/Hearst Avenue (AM Peak – LOS F; PM Peak – LOS F; 2030 Baseline was LOS E) . Oxford Street/University Avenue (AM Peak – LOS E) . Oxford Street/Allston Way (PM Peak – LOS F; 2030 Baseline was LOS E) The DAP EIR also examined increased AM peak hour congestion along Ashby Avenue eastbound between Adeline Street and Telegraph Avenue, DAP-related reduction of emergency access along Center Street, and increased traffic along Milvia Street adversely affecting bicycle boulevard operations. Impacts were assessed in the context of adopted planning documents and were based on the IBI Group’s Berkeley Downtown Area Plan – Program Environmental Impact Report Traffic Impact Analysis. The DAP EIR identified 14 mitigation measures related to intersections and other traffic impacts. The following DAP EIR impacts and mitigation measures may apply to the current project: . Impact TRA-2: Unacceptable LOS during PM Peak Hour at Martin Luther King Jr. Way/Allston Way Intersection. LOS changes from D in Year 2030 Baseline condition to F in Year 2030 With Project condition. The likely cause of this impact is the increase in traffic volumes due to increased development anticipated under the DAP. The existing geometry of this intersection is one through-right and one through-left lane for northbound and southbound directions, one through-left and one right-turn lane for eastbound and westbound directions. In 2030 With Project condition (which would maintain the existing geometry), the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Allston Way would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour, a potentially significant impact.  Mitigation TRA-2: Modify Lane Configuration at Martin Luther King Jr. Way/Allston Way Intersection. The eastbound lane configuration should be changed, turning the existing through-left lane to left turn only and the right lane to a through-right. A right turn lane to Martin Luther King Jr. Way in the southbound direction should be added, changing the through-right lane to through only. This mitigation measure would result in changing the LOS to D, with delay of 49.8s. The implementation of this mitigation measure requires re-striping of Allston Way west of Martin Luther King Jr. Way to accommodate the lane changes, and the acquisition of right-of-way north of Allston Way to accommodate the southbound right tum lane. This measure is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to pedestrian traffic. Implementation of this measure would reduce the DAP-related impact to a level of less than significant. . Impact TRA-5: Unacceptable LOS during PM Peak Hour at Shattuck Avenue/Center Street Intersection. LOS E occurs in Year 2030 Baseline condition, but deteriorates to F in Year 2030 With Project condition. The likely cause of this impact is the reconfiguration of the Downtown Area street network, in particular the changes in the number of lanes on Shattuck Avenue. Shattuck Avenue is a one-way street, with four lanes in the southbound direction: one through-left, two through lanes and one through- right lane. In the eastbound and eastbound directions, there is one through-left lane. In 2030 With Project condition (with Shattuck Avenue converted into a two-way street, with

Environmental Impact Report 161 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

one through and one left tum lane in the northbound direction and one through and one right tum lane in the southbound direction, with Center Street closed to traffic east of Shattuck Avenue and the eastbound direction having one right tum lane and one left tum lane), the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Center Street would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour, a potentially significant impact.  Mitigation TRA-5: Modify Lane Configuration at Shattuck Avenue/Center Street. The significant impact at this intersection can only be mitigated by restoring Shattuck Avenue to provide two traffic lanes in the northbound direction. The proposed mitigation measure would add one lane to Shattuck Avenue in the northbound direction, changing lane configuration to one left tum lane and two through lanes. This mitigation measure would result in change of LOS to D, with delay of 42.6s in the PM peak hour. The implementation of this mitigation measure would require the removal of the parking spaces in the northbound direction of Shattuck Avenue, the reconfiguration of the southeast sidewalk, and the re-striping of Shattuck Avenue in the block south of Center Street. This improvement would result in the loss of about eight on-street parking spaces, but is not anticipated to generate significant impact with regard to parking. Implementation of this measure would reduce the DAP-related impact to a level of less than significant. . Impact TRA-6: Unacceptable LOS during PM Peak Hour at Shattuck Avenue/Allston Way Intersection. LOS D occurs in Year 2030 Baseline condition, and deteriorates to F in Year 2030 With Project condition. This impact results from the combination of the increase in vehicle traffic due to increased development anticipated under the DAP and the reconfiguration of the Downtown Area street network. This impact is connected to the changes proposed on Shattuck Avenue under the DAP. With the existing geometry, in the northbound and southbound directions, the lane configuration is one left tum, one through and one through-right lane. In the eastbound and westbound directions, there is one lane that allows all movements. In 2030 With Project condition (with the existing intersection geometry changed to lose a through lane in the northbound and southbound directions, but maintained in the eastbound and westbound directions), the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour, a potentially significant impact.  Mitigation TRA-6: Modify Lane Configurations at Shattuck Avenue/Allston Way Intersection. The existing number of lanes (three) in the northbound and southbound directions should be maintained, changing lane configurations to one left tum lane, one through lane and one right tum lane. One right tum lane should be added to the westbound direction, changing the existing lane to a through-left only. This mitigation measure would change the forecast LOS to D, with delay of 37.6s in the PM peak hour. The proposed mitigation measure would maintain the single through lane concept of the Shattuck Boulevard plan, but would widen the street cross section by providing a right tum lane in the northbound and southbound directions. On Allston Way, the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure requires the removal of on-street parking to accommodate the new lane configuration. This measure is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to pedestrian traffic. The anticipated loss of six on-street parking spaces on Alston Way and none spaces on Shattuck Avenue is not expected to generate significant impacts.

162 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

Implementation of this measure would reduce the DAP-related impact to a level of less than significant. . Impact TRA-7: Unacceptable LOS during PM Peak Hour at Shattuck Avenue/Bancroft Way Intersection. LOS B occurs in Year 2030 Baseline condition, and deteriorates to E in Year 2030 With Project condition. This impact results from the combination of the increase in trips due to increased development under the DAP and the reconfiguration of the Downtown Area street network. This impact is associated with the changes proposed to lane geometries on Shattuck Avenue. The existing geometry of this intersection is one left tum lane and two through lanes in the northbound and westbound directions, one through and one through right lane in the southbound direction, and one right tum lane in the eastbound direction. Bancroft Way is also a Bicycle Boulevard. In 2030 With Project condition (with the northbound direction configuration changed to one left tum lane and one through-right lane and reducing the southbound direction to one lane, maintaining the existing lane configuration in the eastbound and westbound directions), the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Bancroft Way would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour, a potentially significant impact.  Mitigation TRA-7: Modify Lane Configurations at Shattuck Avenue/Bancroft Way Intersection. The existing number of lanes in the southbound direction should be maintained, changing lane configuration to one through-left lane and one through- right lane. This mitigation measure would result in change of LOS to D, with delay of 37.6s in the PM peak hour. The proposed mitigation measure would not maintain the single through concept of the Shattuck Boulevard plan. On Shattuck Avenue, the implementation of this mitigation measure would require the reconfiguration of the parking spaces and sidewalk in the southbound direction and the re-striping of the segment of the block north of Bancroft Way. This measure is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to pedestrian traffic. Implementation of this measure would reduce the DAP-related impact to a level of less than significant. . Impact TRA-13: DAP-Related Reduction of Emergency Access along Center Street. Under the DAP, The proposed closure of Center Street between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street would eliminate the existing emergency access to several buildings located along this segment of Center Street. This would represent a potentially significant impact.  Mitigation TRA-13: Incorporate Emergency Access Lane in Design for Center Street Pedestrian Corridor. In order to maintain adequate emergency access to buildings located along Center Street between Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street, the design of the proposed Center Street pedestrian corridor shall be required to incorporate a clear area, a minimum of 20 feet in width, where permanent and temporary structures, landscaping, and other physical features are prohibited. This area shall be designated as an emergency access lane, and must be accessible from both Shattuck Avenue and Oxford Street. Implementation of this measure would reduce the DAP-related impact to a level of less than significant. . Impact TRA-14: Increased Traffic Along Milvia Street Adversely Affecting Bicycle Boulevard Operations. As a result of DAP-related traffic increase in traffic volumes along Milvia Street, cyclists would experience deteriorated operations along the Milvia Street Bicycle Boulevard, a potentially significant impact.

Environmental Impact Report 163 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

 Mitigation TRA-14A: Install Class 2 Bike Lanes on Milvia Street between University Avenue and Allston Way. This mitigation measure may result in the loss of on-street parking stalls along Milvia Street in order to accommodate the bike lanes. Up to 35 on-street parking stalls could be impacted by this mitigation measure. As noted in the parking demand discussion, sufficient public parking capacity is anticipated in the Year 2030 With Project condition, so the loss of these parking stalls would not be anticipated to cause a significant impact. This mitigation measure would also not preclude the implementation of the traffic mitigation measures at the University Avenue/Milvia Street intersection and the Center Street/Milvia Street intersection.  Mitigation TRA-14B: Install Traffic Calming Devices. Traffic calming devices should be installed on Milvia Street either between University Avenue and Allston Way or immediately north and south of this segment to discourage through vehicle traffic from traveling on this section of the roadway. Traffic calming devices could include speed humps, turn restrictions/prohibitions, or other measures determined by the City of Berkeley. Implementation of this measure would reduce the DAP-related impact to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Measures TRA-2, TRA-5, TRA-6, TRA-7, TRA-13, and TRA-14 would apply to intersections and other traffic operations that would be potentially affected by the project. The DAP EIR concluded that, with implementation of required mitigation measures, impacts related to transportation/traffic would be reduced to a level of less than significant. The City has not, to date, implemented Mitigation Measures TRA-2, TRA-5, or TRA-6. Implementation of the Shattuck Reconfiguration and Pedestrian Safety Project could render Mitigation Measure TRA-5 unnecessary. As part of this project, the City will maintain two northbound lanes with left turns prohibited at the Shattuck Avenue/Center Street intersection, which would reduce or avoid a traffic impact at this intersection. Consistent with Mitigation Measure TRA-7, the City has maintained the existing number of southbound lanes on Shattuck Avenue at Bancroft Way. Consistent with Mitigation Measure TRA-13, the City will incorporate an emergency access lane as part of the Center Street pedestrian corridor. With regard to Impact TRA-14, the potentially significant impact on bicycle operations along the Milvia Street Bicycle Boulevard would be less adverse than anticipated in the DAP EIR. The City is not currently planning on reducing Shattuck Avenue to one lane in each direction as envisioned in the DAP, which would avoid a substantial increase in traffic volumes along the bicycle boulevard. Nonetheless, the City’s Milvia Bikeway project create separate bike lanes, which is consistent with the intent of Mitigation Measures TRA- 14a and TRA-14b. Impact Analysis Methodology and Thresholds of Significance

Methodology

Traffic Scenarios Traffic congestion at intersections was analyzed for the following traffic scenarios: . Existing (Year 2016) . Baseline (Existing plus Approved)

164 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

. Baseline plus Project . Cumulative (Year 2040) . Cumulative plus Project

The Baseline scenario reflects existing traffic conditions with approved projects using information provided by the City of Berkeley.

Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Intersections were analyzed using PTV’s Vistro Software, which applies the Highway Capacity Manual (2010 HCM) methodology. This methodology uses quantitative measures of traffic conditions (turning movement volumes, signal timing information, roadway geometric configurations) to determine capacity, average delay, and other operational performance measures at an intersection to measure LOS. LOS describes the performance of an intersection based on average delay per vehicle. Intersection LOS ranges from LOS A, which indicates free flow or excellent conditions with short delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions with extremely long delays. LOS and delay are reported as an average across all movements and approaches for study signalized intersections. Intersection LOS criteria are summarized in Table 27.

Table 27 Intersection Level of Service Criteria – Signalized Intersections Average Delay Level of Service Description (seconds per vehicle) A Little or no delay < 10.0 B Short traffic delay > 10.0 and < 20.0 C Average traffic delay > 20.0 and < 35.0 D Long traffic delay > 35.0 and < 55.0 E Very long traffic delay > 55.0 and < 80.0 F Extreme traffic delay > 80.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010.

Because the DAP EIR does not specifically study the impacts of the proposed project on transportation, an analysis of the project’s specific impacts on transportation within the Downtown Core Area is warranted in this EIR. This project-specific analysis considers impacts from the addition of project-generated traffic to baseline and cumulative traffic conditions, as described below.

Baseline Traffic Conditions The baseline traffic scenario takes into consideration approved and under-construction land use development and planned, funded, and approved changes to the transportation (roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle) network and infrastructure near the project site in addition to existing traffic volumes. Using baseline traffic conditions is more representative than existing traffic conditions of what is anticipated to exist at the time of project implementation. A complete analysis of existing traffic conditions can be found in the TIA (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). The following approved and under-construction projects were incorporated into the baseline scenario: . Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue Mixed Use Project (Acheson Commons); . 1974 University Avenue Mixed Use Project (Stone Fire);

Environmental Impact Report 165 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

. 2067 University Avenue Project; . 1935 Addison Street Project (Addison Arts Apartments); . 1950 Addison Street Mixed Use Project; . 2211 Harold Way Mixed Use Project; . 2129 Shattuck Avenue Hotel Project; . 2121 Durant Avenue (Bancroft Apartments) Project; . 2025 Center Street Replacement Project (Center Street Parking Garage); and . 2121 Dwight Way Residential Project (The Dwight Apartments)

In addition to approved land use development, the baseline conditions scenario assumes the following transportation network modifications: . Shattuck Reconfiguration and Pedestrian Safety Project. The Shattuck Reconfiguration and Pedestrian Safety Project will reconfigure Shattuck Avenue from Allston Way three blocks north through the Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue intersection. The project proposes to reconfigure the west (southbound) leg of Shattuck into a two-way street, eliminating the “dog leg” movement for northbound traffic at Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue, while the east (northbound) leg of Shattuck would remain a one-way street intended for local traffic, buses and shuttles, with angled parking to offset the loss of parking on the west leg of Shattuck Avenue. The project includes new traffic signals; curb modifications; median relocation from Center Street to Allston Way; relocated pedestrian refuge at Shattuck Avenue/Center Street; concrete bus pads; bus stops; and roadway striping. The project also repaves the street, repairs the sidewalk, upgrades curb ramps and installs new roadway and pedestrian-scale lighting. Construction is estimated to begin in Summer 2018 and last approximately 18 months. . Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area Improvement Project. The BART Plaza Project will serve a signature place-making function for Downtown Berkeley and improve multi-modal access for residents and employees. The project will improve inter- modal connectivity and enhance rider safety and comfort by reconstructing existing, and installing new transit structures to improve the accessibility and security of BART entries. Pedestrian safety and bicycle parking will also be improved with pedestrian-oriented lighting, landscaping, and bicycle parking facilities. The project is anticipated to be complete in early 2018. . Hearst Avenue Complete Streets Project. The Hearst Avenue Complete Streets Project will improve safety and access for pedestrians, bicyclists, bus riders, and motorists on Hearst Avenue from Shattuck Avenue to La Loma Avenue/Gayley Road. The Hearst Avenue Complete Streets Project is one of three major capital projects in Downtown Berkeley funded by a 2013 grant from ACTC. The project will install new Class IIA Bicycle Lanes, construct 900 feet of new sidewalk, construct bus stop improvements, upgrade and install new traffic signals, install pedestrian flashing beacons and speed feedback signs. In addition, the project includes striping of bike box pavement markings, ADA-compliant curb ramps, reconfiguration of travel lanes, and construction of new medians. Construction is currently underway and the project is expected to be complete in Fall 2017.

Baseline Intersection Level of Service (LOS) For each of the approved and under-construction projects referenced above, the City of Berkeley provided project descriptions and completed traffic studies with weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle-trip generation estimates. Vehicle trips generated by these land uses

166 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic were added to Existing Conditions traffic volumes to derive Baseline Conditions traffic volumes Table 28 summarizes traffic delay in terms of seconds per vehicle and LOS at studied intersections under the Baseline Conditions scenario.

Table 28 Intersection Level of Service – Baseline Conditions Existing Conditions Baseline Conditions AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour # Delay Delay Delay Delay Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS 1 Martin Luther King Jr. Way/University Avenue 28.3 C 29.1 C 30.0 C 30.1 C 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Way/Allston Way 15.8 B 14.6 B 16.1 B 14.9 B 3 Milvia Street/Allston Way 18.1 B 15.9 B 33.7 C 15.9 B 4 Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue 21.0 C 19.9 B 39.8 D 43.9 D 5 Shattuck Avenue/Center Street 14.8 B 18.0 B 10.9 B 16.2 B 6 Shattuck Avenue/Allston Way 22.6 C 18.2 B 23.2 C 18.9 B 7 Shattuck Avenue/Bancroft Way 12.0 B 16.1 B 12.0 B 16.3 B Notes: Delay shown in seconds per vehicle. LOS = Level of Service. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist.

As shown in Table 2, with the addition of traffic generated by the approved and reasonably foreseeable projects, the Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue intersection would operate at vehicle LOS D during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, and the Milvia Street/Allston Way intersection would operate at vehicle LOS C during the weekday AM peak hour. The remaining studied intersections would continue to operate at the same levels of service as under Existing Conditions.

Trip Generation This discussion provides an estimate of the travel demand (trip generation, mode split, average vehicle occupancy, trip distribution and assignment) that the project would generate. Because the proposed retail use would replace existing retail and office space on the site with smaller floor area, trips generated by the retail and office/administration components are included in the background traffic and would not be considered net new project trips. The trip generation estimates for the proposed residential units were developed based on the trip rates for an “Apartment” land use provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012) (Trip Generation Manual). Consistent with the City of Berkeley’s Guidelines for Development of Traffic Impact Reports, trip generation adjustment factors were applied to the ITE trip generation to convert ITE vehicle-trips to person-trips. United States Census American Community Survey (ACS) Five-Year (2010-2014) Estimates mode share data for the project’s census tract was used to estimate person-trips by mode and reflect the transportation options available near the transit-oriented infill site. Using the Guidelines methodology, ITE vehicle-trips are converted to total person-trips by multiplying by a factor of approximately 1.2 to account for non-auto driver modes (i.e.., passengers, transit, bike, walk). Daily, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour ITE trip

Environmental Impact Report 167 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project generation rates and ITE vehicle-trip generation estimates, as well as net new project person-trips are summarized in Table 29. The mode share and average vehicle occupancy data and net new person-trip estimates by mode are shown in Table 30. Net new weekday daily, AM, and weekday PM peak hour vehicle-trip estimates are shown in Table 31. Travel demand calculations are included in Appendix F of the TIA (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist).

Table 29 Person-Trip Generation Rates and Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Rate/ Rate/ Rate/ Description Total Total In Out Total In Out ITE Rates, 220 – Apartment1 6.65 0.51 20% 80% 0.62 65% 35% ITE Trips 1,822 140 28 112 170 110 60 Net New Project Person-Trips2 160 129 31 194 127 67 Notes: 1 The proposed 10,000 square feet of commercial retail would replace the existing retail and office uses on the site with a similar and smaller use. As such, trips generated by these land uses are considered part of the background traffic and are not included in the net new project trip generation estimates. 2 Person-trips by mode for the project are estimated by converting ITE vehicle trips to person trips using a factor of 1.143 and then applying mode share and average vehicle occupancy data for the census tract. Project Person Trips = ITE Vehicle Trips * 1.143; Net New Vehicle-Trips = (Project Person Trips * Auto Mode Share) / Average Vehicle Occupancy. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2017; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.

Table 30 Person-Trip Generation Estimates by Mode – Proposed Project Mode AVO/Vehicle Description Auto Transit Walk Bike Other Total Trips Mode Share1 23% 32% 32% 5% 8% 100% 1.09 Net New Project Person-Trips AM Peak Hour 36 52 52 8 12 160 33 PM Peak Hour 44 63 63 9 15 194 40 Notes: AVO = Average Vehicle Occupancy. 1 Residential journey-to-work commutes mode share and average vehicle occupancy shown for the project’s census tract (4229). Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2017; US Census American Community Survey Five-Year (2010-2014) Estimates.

Table 31 Net New Project Vehicle-Trip Estimates – Proposed Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Description Daily Total In Out Total In Out Net New Project Vehicle-Trips 431 33 7 26 40 26 14 Notes: Net New Project Vehicle Trips = (Project Person Trips * Auto Mode Share) / Average Vehicle Occupancy. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2017; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. US Census American Community Survey Five-Year (2010-2014) Estimates.

Cumulative plus Project Level of Service (LOS) The future year (year 2040) traffic analysis took into consideration forecasted land use development and planned, funded, and approved changes to the transportation network and infrastructure near the project site, including:

168 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

. I-80/Ashby Interchange Improvements . I-80 Express Lanes (Carquinez Bridge to Powell Street); and . I-80 Integrated Corridor Management

Vehicle trips generated by the project were added to traffic volumes under Cumulative conditions to obtain Cumulative plus Project Conditions traffic volumes.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the measure of miles traveled within a specific geographic area for a given period and it provides an indication of automobile and truck travel on a transportation system. Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, signed into law in September 2013, the State CEQA Guidelines could be amended to require analysis based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rather than intersection LOS. In January 2016, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research published for public review and comment a revised proposal to update the State CEQA Guidelines for consistency with Senate Bill 743, recommending that VMT be applied as the primary metric for analysis of traffic impacts. As no formal changes to the CEQA Guidelines have occurred to date, this analysis is not required to analyze the project’s impact on VMT. The City of Berkeley also has not yet developed guidelines or thresholds for VMT analysis. Nonetheless, this section evaluates the project’s effects on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for informational purposes. Based on the proposed update to the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds existing VMT per capita/employee minus 15 percent. Average per capita VMT was obtained from the ACTC travel demand model. The average per capita VMT for residential land uses in the project’s traffic analysis zone was compared to average VMT for the City, Alameda County Planning Area 1, and Alameda County.

Construction Assessment of the project’s construction‐related impacts on local and regional roads included review of existing daily traffic volumes and consideration of both the addition of project‐related construction traffic to existing daily traffic levels and the capacity of the roads to handle the additional traffic. The following key construction conditions assumptions were made for the traffic operations analysis: . The day during the construction period that would yield the highest number of daily construction trips (measured in passenger car equivalents3) is chosen as the representative day for analysis; . Each construction worker/employee generates two trips per day (one inbound, arriving to the construction site; one outbound, departing the construction site); . Construction truck and employee trips are assigned to the roadway network as follows: 100 percent inbound during the weekday AM peak hour, 100 percent outbound during the weekday PM peak hour;

3 A Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) is essentially the impact that a mode of transport (e.g.. construction truck) has on traffic variable (such as headway, speed, density) compared to a single car.

Environmental Impact Report 169 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

. Construction truck trips are assigned to designated haul routes (routes that provide the most direct access to the surrounding major regional highways, such as University Avenue and Shattuck Avenue); and . Construction traffic is temporary and would cease at the end of construction.

Significance Thresholds

State CEQA Guidelines Consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to transportation and circulation would be considered potentially significant if implementation of the project would do any of the following: 1. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit 2. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of services standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks 4. Substantially increase traffic-related hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses 5. Result in inadequate emergency access 6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation

As discussed in the Infill Environmental Checklist, the project would not result in any change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks (Appendix A). As determined in the DAP EIR for the Plan as a whole, the project would have no impact from interference with air traffic patterns and this threshold is not further discussed in this EIR.

City of Berkeley According to significance thresholds in the City’s Guidelines for Development of Traffic Impact Reports (Office of Transportation, City of Berkeley), a significant impact could be identified for: Vehicles. Impacts related to vehicle traffic can result from an increase in delay or introduction of safety concerns. If at a local signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersection, the addition of traffic generated by the project causes: . Intersection operations to degrade from LOS D to LOS E with more than a 2-second increase in delay; or . An increase of three or more seconds of delay at an intersection operating at LOS E; or . Intersection operations to degrade from LOS E to LOS F with more than a three-second increase in delay; or

170 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

. An increase in volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.01 or more at intersections operating at LOS F without the project.

Transit, Pedestrians, and Bicycles. The project would result in a significant impact on transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists if it would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of facilities serving these modes. Impacts on transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, can result from projects that in themselves generate a significant number of trips for these modes, such that the project would result in overcrowding or hazardous conditions. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Thresholds 1 and 2 . Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. . Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of services standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Impact T-1 With the addition of vehicle trips from the project, all intersections near the project site would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service of LOS D or better. The project would have a less than significant impact on the vehicular circulation system under the Baseline plus Project traffic scenario.

Operation of the project would generate an estimated 33 net vehicle-trips (7 inbound, 26 outbound) during the weekday AM peak hour and 40 net vehicle trips (26 inbound, 14 outbound) during the weekday PM peak hour. Table 32 presents Intersection LOS under the Baseline plus Project traffic scenario.

Table 32 Intersection Level of Service – Baseline plus Project Conditions Baseline Conditions Baseline plus Project Conditions AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Significant Hour Hour Hour Hour Impact # Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Yes/No 1 Martin Luther King Jr. Way/University No 30.0 C 30.1 C 30.2 C 30.1 C Ave 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Way/Allston Way 16.1 B 14.9 B 16.2 B 15.1 B No 3 Milvia Street/Allston Way 33.7 C 15.9 B 33.9 C 16.2 B No 4 Shattuck Avenue/University Ave 39.8 D 43.9 D 40.1 D 44.2 D No 5 Shattuck Avenue/Center Street 10.9 B 16.2 B 10.9 B 16.3 B No 6 Shattuck Avenue/Allston Way 23.2 C 18.9 B 23.5 C 19.3 B No 7 Shattuck Avenue/Bancroft Way 12.0 B 16.3 B 12.0 B 16.3 B No Notes: Delay shown in seconds per vehicle. LOS = Level of Service. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2017.

Environmental Impact Report 171 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

As shown in Table 32, all studied intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better. The addition of vehicle traffic generated by the project would not degrade intersection operations relative to existing conditions. In addition, the project would incorporate the following transportation demand management strategies that would help reduce vehicle trips associated with project operations: . Unbundled Parking. Parking would be leased or sold separately; . Car Vehicle Share Parking. Vehicle share parking spaces in excess of code requirement would be provided. Five car vehicle share parking share parking spaces would be located within the parking garage; . Bike Parking and Amenities. Secure on‐site parking would be provided in a Class 1 bike room with a repair/service station for use by building tenants. Class 2 bike racks would be provided on sidewalks near pedestrian entrances to the building; and, . Transit Subsidy. Transit passes would be provided to residents, consistent with the Commuter Benefit Program and City of Berkeley Municipal Code 23E.68.080.H requirements4.

By incorporating these strategies, the project would meet the intent of the DAP Policy AC- 1.2 and 1.3 by supporting alternative travel modes, by encouraging commuting with transit, ridesharing, bicycles, and on foot. Unbundled parking reduces the number of vehicle trips by an estimated 10 percent, while the provision of car-share spaces reduces trips by an estimated 2 percent, according to a 2006 memorandum prepared for the City by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on traffic congestion at intersections under Baseline plus Project conditions.

MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION This impact would be less than significant without mitigation. Impact T-2 The project would generate vehicle trips in an area of Berkeley with low existing vehicle miles traveled relative to surrounding areas in Alameda County, and public transit would accommodate a substantial portion of the project’s travel demand. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to vehicle miles traveled.

Based on the ACTC travel demand model, residents of the project’s traffic analysis zone in Berkeley travel an average of 4.5 miles per day. This amount of vehicle travel is substantially lower than average daily VMT in surrounding areas: 48 percent below the City of Berkeley’s overall average of 8.7 miles per capita, 58 percent below the Alameda County Planning Area 1 average of 10.7 miles per capita, and 73 percent below the Alameda County average of 16.4 miles per capita. Because the project would generate vehicle trips in an area with relatively low VMT, it would not have an adverse effect related to VMT.

4 City of Berkeley Commuter Benefit Program Ordinance. Online: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_- _Transportation/FAQs%20for%20City%20of%20Berkeley%20Transit%20Benefit%20Ordinance.pdf

172 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

Furthermore, as shown in Table 30, public transit would accommodate a substantial portion of the project’s travel demand (an estimated 32 percent), which would reduce the project’s motor vehicle trips. Because the project site is adjacent to the Downtown Berkeley BART Station, it also meets the Proximity to Transit Stations screening criterion in the State’s proposed revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. This indicates that the project would not cause a substantial increase in VMT. Therefore, the impact would have a less than significant impact related to VMT.

MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION This impact would be less than significant without mitigation. Impact T-3 Construction of the project, based on its expected duration and intensity, would result in a temporary reduction in roadway capacity, closure of portions of Allston Way, and relocation of AC Transit bus stops. These physical changes would have temporary adverse effects on vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation. The project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation during construction.

Throughout construction of the project, the staging and delivery of construction materials and equipment, removal of construction debris, and parking for construction workers would temporarily affect the circulation system. Without mitigation, temporary impacts due to construction would be in conflict with DAP Goal AC-2 to give pedestrians priority in downtown and make walking downtown safe, attractive, easy, and convenient for people of all ages and abilities and Goal AC-4 to promote transit as an efficient, attractive choice and as a primary mode of motor-vehicle travel. During the demolition phase of construction, which is anticipated to yield the most vehicle trips, it is estimated that a maximum of 54 truck trips, or 108 passenger car equivalent trips, per day (54 inbound during the AM peak hour and 54 outbound during the PM peak hour) attributable to equipment, material delivery, and disposal would be required (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). The maximum estimated number of construction worker vehicle trips during this phase would be 30 vehicle‐trips (15 inbound during the AM peak hour and 15 outbound during the PM peak hour). Cumulatively, all construction‐related traffic would add up to an estimated 138 total daily passenger car equivalent trips to area roadways (69 inbound during the AM peak hour and 69 outbound during the PM peak hour). Construction trucks would be required by the City to use designated access and haul routes to transport materials to and from the staging area and construction site. These routes are comprised of a combination of City of Berkeley designated truck routes (over seven tons) and local streets that direct access to the construction site as discussed in the Project Setting above. Construction hours and haul routes would need to be determined in consultation with the City of Berkeley Public Works Department, coordinated with local development projects, and finalized as part of the Transportation Construction Plan process in order to reduce potentially significant temporary impacts from construction trucks to a less than significant level. Construction work would require the temporary closure of the westbound travel lane and north sidewalk on Allston Way, adjacent to the project site. The site’s frontage along Allston Way is currently striped with red curb and is used as a bus layover zone and posted bus

Environmental Impact Report 173 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project stop for AC Transit Line 12 and Line 88. This layover zone is used periodically throughout the day by one or more AC Transit vehicles. The existing AC transit bus stop for lines 12 and 88 would need to be temporary relocated during the construction period. During this temporary travel lane and sidewalk closure; vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit would need to be directed to alternative routes. In addition, construction staging and delivery activities may temporarily impede traffic flow on area roadways. The project would be subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval, including allowable hours of construction. It is anticipated that construction activity would be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturday. These time limits would prevent construction-related impacts on circulation outside of allowable hours. However, the project would have a potentially significant impact during allowed daytime hours.

MITIGATION MEASURES In addition to the adherence to City’s standard conditions of approval related to temporary construction impacts, the following mitigation measure is required to avoid potentially significant temporary impacts related to construction. T‐3 Development and Implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, a construction traffic management plan shall be prepared and implemented during construction and shall include, but not be limited to, the following strategies to the satisfaction of the City’s Zoning Officer and Public Works staff: . Temporary Traffic Control Strategies  Coordinate with the City of Berkeley Public Works Department and construction manager(s)/contractor(s) for nearby developments, and with AC Transit, Bear Transit, and Alta Bates Shuttle, as applicable, to develop construction phasing and operations and detour plans that would result in the least amount of disruption that is feasible to transit operations, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and vehicular traffic.  Establish construction phasing/staging schedule and sequence that minimize impacts of a work zone on traffic by using operationally sensitive phasing and staging throughout the life of the project.  Coordinate and schedule utilities work to minimize potential work disruptions or interruptions and reduce overall construction duration.  Identify optimal delivery and haul routes to and from the site to minimize impacts to traffic, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists.  Conduct monitoring for pavement damage and timing/coordination for completing repairs along construction truck routes  Identify arrival/departure times for trucks and construction workers to avoid peak periods of adjacent street traffic and minimize traffic affects  Specify timing, signage, location, and duration of necessary partial/complete sidewalk closures and identification of detour routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles, as needed  Preserve safe and convenient passage for pedestrians and bicyclists around construction areas. Provide alternate facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians (including those with disabilities) in places where the work zone impacts accessibility

174 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

 Provide for relocation of bus stops and ensure adequate wayfinding and signage to notify transit users  Establish criteria for use of flaggers and other temporary traffic controls  Preserve emergency vehicle access  As necessary, obtain a transportation permit from Caltrans for transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways . Transportation Operations and Transportation Demand Management Measures  Encourage construction workers to use transit, carpool and other sustainable transportation modes when commuting to and from the site.  Specify locations of construction worker employee parking. . Public Information Strategies  Provide advance notification to affected property owners, businesses, residents, etc. of possible driveway blockages or other access obstructions and implement alternate access and parking provisions where necessary.  Implement public awareness strategies to educate and reach out to the public, businesses, and the community concerning the project and work zone (e.g., brochures and mailers, press releases/media alerts).  Provide a point of contact for residents, employees, property owners, and visitors to obtain construction information, and provide comments and questions.  Provide current and/or real‐time information to road users regarding the project work zone (e.g., changeable message sign to notify road users of lane and road closures and work activities, temporary conventional signs to guide motorists through the work zone).

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of the transportation construction plan required under Mitigation Measure T‐3, the applicant would disseminate appropriate information to contractors and affected agencies with respect to coordinating construction activities to minimize overall disruptions and ensure that overall circulation in the project vicinity is maintained to the extent possible, with particular focus on ensuring transit, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity. This would ensure that the project would be consistent with DAP Policies AC 2.1 and 2.2 to provide safe and accessible access to Downtown streets and Policies AC-4.2 to improve transit options and give transit priority over personal vehicles. Therefore, construction-related impacts on the circulation system would be less than significant after mitigation.

Environmental Impact Report 175 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Threshold 4 . Substantially increase traffic-related hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Impact T-4 The proposed project driveway would introduce potential conflicts between vehicles accessing the site and pedestrians using the north-side sidewalk of Allston Way. Use of the proposed driveway within approximately 25 feet of a bus layover zone on Allston Way also could introduce conflicts between vehicles accessing the site and buses. These conflicts would cause a potentially significant impact without adequate sight distance provided at the project driveway and appropriate technology to minimize conflicts associated with the driveway. The project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

While the project would include removal of an existing curb cut on Allston Way for the loading zone to the on-site Walgreens drug store and pharmacy, it would introduce a new curb cut and driveway across the Allston Way sidewalk to access the proposed garage. Vehicles accessing the garage would need to cross the Allston Way sidewalk, which currently experiences moderate to high levels of pedestrian volumes throughout the day. The proposed garage for residential and commercial use would also accommodate more vehicles than does the existing Walgreens loading zone, resulting in a greater number of vehicles crossing the driveway than under existing conditions. At this location, vehicles would need to wait for a gap in pedestrian traffic to enter/exit the garage. Drivers could be required to wait long periods of time for a sufficient gap in pedestrian traffic, which could lead drivers to take risks or attempt to squeeze between pedestrians. Additionally, at parking garage access points, drivers often have poor visibility of pedestrians approaching on the sidewalk. Drivers might pull across the sidewalk and obstruct pedestrian travel while waiting for a gap in oncoming traffic and attempting to enter the vehicle travel lane. The proposed driveway also would be located approximately 25 feet west of the proposed bus layover zone on the north side of Allston Way. Due to the proximity of these features, conflicts could occur between buses entering or exiting the layover zone and vehicles entering or exiting the driveway. The provision of adequate sight distance at driveways and nearby intersections would improve visibility between oncoming vehicles and pedestrians or buses and reduce potential for conflicts at these locations. Installation of “STOP” markings would remind drivers to stop and look both ways prior to exiting the driveway. In addition, the provision of flashing light- emitting diode (LED) warning signs with optional accompanying audio cues that detect vehicles approaching the parking garage exit would alert pedestrians of exiting vehicles and increase driver awareness. A variety of technologies have also emerged and evolved in recent years that offer promising prospects for detecting pedestrians. One such device is the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) animated LED “eyes” signal. This display is mounted overhead at the garage exit and uses sensors to detect approaching pedestrians. If pedestrians are detected, the animated eyes display looks left, right, or both ways, depending on where pedestrians are positioned and which direction they are moving. Installation of this device, or something similar, would provide visual warning to alert drivers when pedestrians are present. The impact from design hazards would be potentially significant without adequate sight distance and appropriate technology to minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and

176 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic pedestrians or buses. In addition, without mitigation the project would not be consistent with DAP Policy AC-3.3 related to locating and designing new parking in ways that minimize negative impacts to Downtown pedestrians.

MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure T-4 would be required to minimize vehicle/pedestrian/bus conflicts at the proposed driveway. T‐4 Driveway Safety Measures Prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall implement the following traffic safety measures to the satisfaction of the City’s Zoning Officer and Public Works staff: . Per City of Berkeley guidelines, maintain a minimum five foot by five foot sight distance triangle at the driveway entrance/exit; . Install “STOP” pavement markings and signage for exiting drivers to look both ways at the exit, prior to crossing the sidewalk; . Install convex mirrors at the project driveway to improve the visibility of exiting vehicles from the sidewalk; . Provide visual and/or audio warning devices that alert pedestrians when vehicles are exiting the driveway; and . Provide visual warning devices that alert drivers when pedestrians are present on the sidewalk.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of Mitigation Measure T‐4, the project would have a less than significant impact from design hazards to pedestrians and buses. In addition, it would ensure that the project complied with DAP Policy AC-3.3, Action b) to locate, design, and size entrances and exits to parking through traffic management, exit mirrors, and warning lights in order to minimize impacts on pedestrians. Impact T-5 Commercial and passenger loading activity associated with the project would introduce potential conflicts with other automobiles, buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians. If demand exceeds available space at the proposed commercial loading zone on the north side of Allston Way or at the existing passenger loading zone on the south side of the street, spillover loading activity could lead to illegal parking in red curb zones or double-parking. Large trucks parked in the proposed loading zone also could temporarily block access to and from the proposed garage. The project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated to minimize traffic conflicts associated with loading activity.

The project would generate demand for commercial and passenger loading spaces to serve the proposed retail store and residences. As discussed in Impact T-4, the project would remove an on-site commercial loading zone for the existing Walgreens store; however, it would add a commercial loading zone for the proposed retail store on the north side of Allston Way, just east of the proposed driveway. The project would not be required to provide a dedicated passenger loading zone. The potential effects of the project’s commercial and passenger loading activity on the circulation system are analyzed below.

Environmental Impact Report 177 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Commercial Loading Activity The proposed 25-foot-long commercial loading space on the north side of Allston Way would accommodate delivery vehicles such as vans and single-unit trucks (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Goods would be transported from this curbside space through a door at the west end of the proposed building’s Allston Way frontage, which would open to a loading corridor that leads to the retail store. This path of travel would reduce the potential for conflict with pedestrian traffic, which is much heavier on Shattuck Avenue than on Allston Way in the Downtown Area. Other vehicles parked on Allston Way would not present an obstacle to commercial vehicles accessing the proposed loading zone. It is not anticipated that vehicles maneuvering into and out of the loading space would interfere with traffic in the adjacent travel lanes. In the event that the project’s dedicated commercial loading zone is occupied, other delivery vehicles serving the project would be diverted to other on-street parking. These vehicles could use nearby available on-street parking spaces or the nearest existing commercial loading zone located on the southwest corner of Allston Way and Harold Way (about 0.5 blocks from the project site). At times, however, loading demand for the project could exceed the supply of nearby on-street parking. As noted in the Setting, delivery vehicles on Allston Way have been observed pulling into passenger loading zones and red curb zones when on-street parking spaces are not available. This loading activity causes some congestion and delay to passenger vehicles, buses, and bicycles as larger delivery vehicles pull into and away from the curb. It is anticipated that additional loading activity associated with the project could result in similar traffic conflicts near the project site. Larger trucks such as tractor-trailers currently serve the existing Walgreens store and are anticipated to serve the proposed retail space as well. When trucks exceeding 25 feet in length pull into the proposed commercial loading zone, they would extend across the proposed driveway, temporarily blocking vehicular access to and from the building’s garage. In addition, if the commercial loading zone is blocked, larger trucks could stop illegally in red curb zones or double park. Typically, larger trucks arrive during early morning off-peak hours, reducing the potential for conflict with other vehicles using the driveway. However, they could still impair the circulation of passenger vehicles, buses, and bicyclists on Allston Way. Therefore, commercial loading activity for the project would have a potentially significant impact from traffic conflicts. Passenger Loading Activity The project’s residential and retail uses would generate some taxi or transportation network company (e.g., Uber and Lyft) trips, resulting in pick-up and drop-off activity for passengers at the site. The nearest on-street passenger loading zone is located on the south side of Allston Way across from the project site, in front of the Shattuck Hotel. It is expected that building residents and visitors would use this existing 60-foot-long passenger loading zone. However, if this zone is occupied, passenger loading may occur at nearby available on- street parking spaces. Excess demand at the loading zone also could lead to drivers stopping illegally in red curb zones or double-parking. As for commercial loading activity, illegal parking in red curb zones and double-parking would disrupt the circulation system on Allston Way. Therefore, passenger loading activity would have a potentially significant impact from traffic conflicts.

178 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure T-5 would be required to minimize conflicts with buses and bicyclists associated with the project’s commercial and passenger loading activity. T-5 Loading Monitoring and Management Plan Prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy, a qualified transportation consultant (as determined by the City’s Traffic Engineer) shall prepare a loading monitoring plan to observe traffic conflicts associated with the project’s commercial and passenger loading activities, and submit it for approval by the Traffic Engineer. The plan shall include a schedule for conducting observations of loading activities on Allston Way between Shattuck Avenue and Harold Way during the first six months after project occupancy, and a schedule for reporting these observations to the Traffic Engineer. The transportation consultant shall the implement the approved monitoring plan, and Transportation Division staff will review the consultant’s observations and determine if additional loading management strategies are required, including, but not limited to, limiting commercial deliveries for the on-site retail use to certain times of day. The manager and/or owner of the proposed building shall implement the required management strategies throughout operation of the project.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of Mitigation Measure T‐5, management of the proposed building would apply strategies to reduce traffic conflicts associated with the project’s commercial and passenger loading activity. These strategies would minimize illegal parking in red curb zones and double-parking to the extent feasible and could restrict the use of large trucks for commercial loading. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact from loading conflicts. Impact T-6 Garbage, recycling, and green waste generated by the project would be placed curbside on Allston Way for periodic collection. Zero Waste trucks would have direct access to the curbside collection area. While storage bins would present a minor and temporary obstacle for pedestrians, they would not substantially affect pedestrian circulation on Allston Way. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact from circulation conflicts related to garbage, recycling, and green waste collection.

The proposed residential and commercial uses would generate garbage, recycling, and green waste (compost) that would be stored in a designated trash room located in the proposed garage (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). On collection days, building management would be responsible for bringing the bins or carts curbside on Allston Way for pick-up. It is anticipated that the building would receive service three times per week at around 6 A.M., although the number of service days per week and time service would be reviewed and adjusted as necessary. Based on a review of the proposed site plan with the service provider, Zero Waste trucks would have direct access to the curbside collection area from Allston Way, consistent with current service practices. The bins would present a minor and temporary obstacle for pedestrians, but would not substantially affect pedestrian operations given the temporary nature of the obstruction and the fact that trash and recycling collection occurs during off- peak times. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact from circulation conflicts related to garbage, recycling, and green waste collection.

Environmental Impact Report 179 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION This impact would be less than significant without mitigation. Threshold 5 . Result in inadequate emergency access Impact T-7 All streets and intersections on the route from the nearest fire stations to the project site are sufficiently wide enough to provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the site. Operation of the project would not substantially increase delays on emergency access routes. However, project construction would temporarily impede emergency access to the project site during construction. The project would have a less than significant impact related to emergency access with mitigation incorporated during construction.

The nearest Berkeley Fire Department stations from which emergency vehicles would serve the project site are Fire Station #2 at 2029 Berkeley Way and the Main Station at 2100 Martin Luther King Jr Way (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). All streets and intersections on the routes between these fire stations and the project site are sufficiently wide enough to provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the site. The project also would not substantially increase emergency response times from these fire stations to the project site. At intersections on the emergency vehicle route between Fire Station #2 and the project site, the project would result in an overall estimated increase in travel times of less than one second during the weekday A.M. peak hour and less than two seconds during the weekday P.M. peak hour (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). On the route between the Main Station and the project site, the project would result in an overall estimated increase in travel times of less than five seconds during the weekday A.M. peak hour and less than one second during the weekday P.M. peak hour. Emergency response times to the project site would continue to be less than four minutes. Therefore, operation of the project would result in a less than significant impact to emergency vehicle access. However, construction of the project would result in reduced roadway capacity during temporary closure of the westbound travel lane and north sidewalk along Allston Way. This reduced roadway capacity could potentially result in a significant impact to emergency vehicle access, especially if it takes place concurrently with construction related to other developments. As a result of potentially overlapping construction schedules, construction activities associated with these projects would affect access, traffic, and pedestrians on streets used as access routes to and from the project site (e.g., Shattuck Avenue, Allston Way). Localized delays to emergency access could occur as a result of cumulative projects that generate increased traffic at the same time and on the same roads as the project. This impact would be potentially significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, the applicant would coordinate with the City to develop a detailed and coordinated plan that would address emergency vehicle routing during construction, as well as construction vehicle routing, traffic control, and pedestrian and bicycle accommodation in the work zone for the duration of any overlap in construction activity.

180 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of temporary traffic control strategies and the transportation operations and demand management measures as described in Mitigation Measure T‐3 would minimize delays to emergency access. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the emergency access system after mitigation. Threshold 6 . Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impact T-8 The project would not generate a substantial increase in transit ridership that results in result in overcrowding on local or regional transit systems. However, the temporary closure of an AC Transit bus stop and layover zone would impede transit access during construction. Traffic conflicts with vehicles entering and leaving the proposed driveway and with loading activity also could delay buses on Allston Way. The project would have a less than significant impact on the performance of local and regional transit operations with mitigation incorporated to preserve local bus access during construction and to minimize traffic and loading conflicts with buses during operation.

The project would affect the performance of local bus and regional transit operations. During construction, the project would temporarily impede bus access on Allston Way. During the operational phase, the project would increase demand for transit service and traffic delay on bus routes. Additional demand for transit service, as shown in Table 4, was estimated assuming a 32 percent transit commute mode share, provided by the U.S. Census Five-Year (2010-2014) Estimates for the project’s census tract (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Based on this mode share, the project would generate an estimated 52 transit trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 63 transit trips during the weekday PM peak hour (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). New transit trips were distributed to local and regional transit lines based on the anticipated origin and destination and the frequency of transit service. Approximately 70 percent of new transit trips (36 weekday AM peak hour, 44 weekday PM peak hour) to and from the project site would use nearby AC Transit local lines for local trips. The remaining 30 percent (16 weekday AM peak hour, 19 weekday PM peak hour) would use regional service such as BART and AC Transit Transbay lines for trips outside of Berkeley (potentially with transfers to/from Amtrak Capitol Corridor using AC Transit). The following analysis considers the project’s specific effects on local and regional transit service during construction and operation. Local Operations Construction of the project would close access to the existing 160-foot-long layover zone for AC Transit buses on the north side of Allston Way. This bus layover zone is currently dedicated to AC Transit lines 12 and 88. Closure of the bus layover zone during construction would require a temporary relocation of AC Transit lines 12 and 88 to maintain bus service in the project vicinity. Operation of the project would increase ridership on AC Transit bus lines serving the project site. As discussed above, it is estimated that AC Transit buses would accommodate 70

Environmental Impact Report 181 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project percent of new transit trips to and from the proposed residential and commercial uses. Table 33 shows the current AC Transit ridership levels and estimated project ridership by line.

Table 33 AC Transit Ridership ______Terminals______Existing Ridership__ _ _Project Ridership__ Peak Period Passengers Frequency Unlinked per Weekday Passenger Revenue AM Peak PM Peak Route North/East South/West (Weekend) Boardings Hour Hour Hour 1 Berkeley BART Bay Fair BART 15 11,700 50 4 5 (20) 6 Berkeley BART Downtown 10 11,800 59 6 8 Oakland (15) 7 Berkeley BART El Cerrito Del 40 500 21 1 1 Norte BART (45) 12 Berkeley BART Downtown 20 2,000 26 3 4 Oakland (30) 18 University Montclair 15 7,000 38 5 6 Village, Albany (20) 25 Richmond San Francisco 40 750 18 1 1 BART (Van Ness Muni (60) Metro) 49 Oakland (14th Berkeley Amtrak 30 2,000 30 1 2 Street/Broadway) (40) 51B Rockridge Berkeley Amtrak 10-20 9,000 63 6 7 BART (15-20) 52 UC Berkeley Albany Village 15-35 2,000 41 3 4 (35) 65 Berkeley BART Lawrence Hall of 30 800 26 1 1 Science (60) 67 Berkeley BART Grizzly Peak 30-40 200 27 1 1 (45) 88 Berkeley BART Lake Merritt 20 1,900 22 1 1 BART (30) F UC Berkeley San Francisco 30 N\A 26 2 2 Transbay (30) Terminal FS Solano Avenue/ San Francisco 30 N\A 23 1 1 Colusa Avenue Transbay (N/A) Terminal Total 49,650 470 36 44 Source: AC Transit Inner East Bay Comprehensive Operational Analysis, Existing Conditions Phase II, 2013; Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2017. Notes: N/A = Not Applicable.

As shown in Table 33, the project would add an estimated maximum of eight riders to any single route during weekday peak hours, equivalent to about two additional riders per bus. AC Transit lines serving the project site were observed to operate with sufficient capacity to

182 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic accommodate the addition of anticipated riders generated by the project (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). The project’s incremental increase in ridership on these lines, about one or two riders per bus, could be accommodated, and the project would not result in overcrowding at transit stops or vehicles serving the project site. Operation of the project also would affect local transit access and mobility on Allston Way. The project would preserve AC Transit access on the street by replacing the existing 160- foot-long bus layover zone with a new 135-foot-long layover zone on the project site’s frontage on the north side of Allston Way. The new layover zone would be located to the east of the proposed 25-foot commercial loading space on Allston Way. Despite maintaining transit access on Allston Way, the project could impede the mobility of AC Transit lines 12 and 88. As discussed in Impact T-4, the proposed driveway would be located approximately 25 feet west of the proposed bus layover zone. Due to the proximity of these features, conflicts could occur between buses entering or exiting the layover zone and vehicles entering or exiting the driveway. AC Transit buses re‐entering the westbound travel lane on Allston Way would be most affected by project‐generated vehicle trips turning into and out of the project driveway. In addition, as discussed in Impact T-5, if demand for nearby commercial or passenger loading spaces exceeds supply, loading activity could cause some congestion and delay to buses as larger delivery vehicles pull into and away from the curb. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would have a potentially significant impact on the performance of local transit operations. Regional Operations Based on the transit mode share and distribution calculated in Table 4, it is anticipated that about 30 percent of transit trips during operation of the project would be regional trips on BART. This would amount to 16 weekday AM peak hour and 19 weekday PM peak hour regional transit trips generated by the project. Based on the current peak commute schedule, this would equate to about two people per train. Given that each BART train typically has between eight and ten cars, this would amount to an increase of less than one person per car (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Similarly, conservatively assuming 100 percent of project- generated trips on BART during the weekday PM peak hour used the Transbay Tube, the project would add a maximum of 19 people traveling westbound in the Transbay Tube during this time. Based on the current peak commute schedule, this would equate to less than three people per train. Given that each train typically has between eight and ten cars, this would amount to an increase of less than one person per car (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). This level of transit ridership would not result in substantial delays to existing riders. BART is currently operating over capacity with peak-hour ridership of more than 28,000 through the Transbay Tube and the addition of project‐generated transit riders would contribute to the overcapacity conditions on Transbay lines. However, the project’s incremental contribution to overall ridership on these BART lines would be minimal. Furthermore, BART is currently making major investments in new infrastructure to accommodate growth and improve and increase service. The current Downtown Berkeley Station Modernization Project involves long‐term improvements to guide future investment in the station, including upgrades to circulation, access and customer experience at the station concourse and platform levels (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Additionally, BART’s Fleet of the Future project would provide new train cars with higher capacity and three-door boarding. New train

Environmental Impact Report 183 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project cars are currently being tested and are expected to be in commercial service on the Transbay lines in Fall 2017. An improved train control system, which would allow for shorter headways, is another interrelated capital investment initiative that would increase capacity along the BART line. Because of BART’s ongoing improvements to transit capacity and the project’s incremental increases in transit demand, the project would not substantially degrade regional transit service.

MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure T-3 would require the applicant to coordinate with the City, AC Transit, and BART to accommodate the short ‐ and long‐ term pl zones during construction. Mitigation Measure T-4 would require implementation of safety measures to minimize vehicle/bus conflicts at the proposed driveway. In addition, Mitigation Measure T-5 would require management of the proposed building would apply strategies to reduce traffic conflicts associated with the project’s commercial and passenger loading activity.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of temporary traffic control strategies in Mitigation Measure T‐3 would ensure a temporary relocation of the AC Transit bus layover zone next the project site during construction, preserving bus access in the project vicinity. This mitigation measure also would ensure consistency with DAP Policy AC-4.2, Actions c) and d) to work with AC Transit and shuttle providers to identify suitable bus stops and layover locations and avoid bus stop and layover locations that interrupt pedestrian movement or block clear views of sidewalks, plazas or storefronts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-4 would avoid vehicle/bus conflicts at the proposed driveway by maintaining adequate sight distance and installing convex mirrors that improve the visibility of vehicles leaving the driveway. With implementation of Mitigation Measure T-5, the project would minimize adverse effects on bus movement from loading activities including illegal parking in red curb zones and double- parking. Therefore, after mitigation, construction and operation of the project would have a less than significant impact on the performance of transit operations. Threshold 6 . Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impact T-9 The project would not involve features that would result in permanent or substantial operational impacts to alternative modes of transportation. However, construction of the project would temporarily impact pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on local pedestrian and bicycle circulation.

Pedestrian Circulation The project would generate pedestrian trips to and from the project site and to and from parked vehicles and transit lines. Primary pedestrian access to the residential units would be from the residential lobby on Allston Way, or through the proposed elevators located within the garage. Pedestrian access to the commercial retail space would be from Shattuck Avenue, similar to the existing access to the Walgreens store, which is currently operating at the site. As shown in Table 4 above, the project would add approximately 104 pedestrian trips (52 walk trips, 52 transit trips) during the weekday AM peak hour and 126 pedestrian trips (63 walk trips, 63 transit trips) during the weekday PM peak hour (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist).

184 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

New pedestrian activity would be concentrated near the Shattuck Avenue/Allston Way intersection adjacent to the project site. Some level of activity would also be expected along Shattuck Avenue as pedestrians travel between nearby transit stops, retail, and employment destinations along the corridor. Existing sidewalks and crosswalks in the Downtown Area could accommodate these new pedestrian trips without adverse effects on pedestrian circulation. The proposed sidewalk and frontage improvements would enhance pedestrian conditions along Allston Way and Shattuck Avenue. The project would replace the existing building’s blank wall on Allston Way with art vitrines, an entry plaza, and a community art space. The applicant also would coordinate with BART on planned improvements to the BART Plaza on Shattuck Avenue. These improvements would be refined and finalized in coordination with City staff and the Design Review Committee, in accordance with applicable City standards. In addition, the project would be consistent with DAP Policy AC-1.1 related to modifying or improving Downtown streets to better serve the needs of pedestrians. However, as discussed in Impact T-4 above, the project would introduce a new driveway and curb cut across the Allston Way sidewalk to access the proposed garage. Long waits for vehicles accessing or leaving the garage could lead drivers to take risks or attempt to squeeze between pedestrians. Additionally, at parking garage access points, drivers often have poor visibility of pedestrians approaching on the sidewalk. Mitigation with line-of-sight and technological improvements at the garage entrance point would be required to ensure project consistency with DAP Policies AC-2.1 and AC-2.2 regarding pedestrian safety and access to the Downtown. The impact to pedestrian safety would be potentially significant.

Bicycle Circulation The project site is located near several streets with designated bicycle facilities (e.g., Center Street [Class II], Milvia Street [Class II/III]). As shown in Table 30, the project would generate an estimated 8 bicycle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 9 bicycle trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Project‐related bicycle trips would be spread over multiple routes. Based on the level of bicycle activity on surrounding streets, the new bicycle trips would not adversely affect overall bicycle circulation in the area or the operations of adjacent bicycle facilities or study intersections. The Berkeley Municipal Code requires new commercial/retail developments to provide safe and secure bicycle parking. However, the Berkeley Municipal Code does not contain requirements for residential developments. However, the project proposes a total of 94 long- term bicycle parking spaces in a bicycle storage room located on the west side of the building, accessible from Allston Way and would provide short-term parking for at least six bicycles in bicycle racks placed on sidewalks near the pedestrian entrances to the building. Bike racks would be placed in the furnishing zone (the area of the sidewalk that provides a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles) to avoid conflict with pedestrian paths of travel and installed in accordance with the design review guidelines and the City of Berkeley Bike Rack Specifications and Installation Standards (September 2008) and as directed by the City. This would ensure project consistency with DAP Policy AC-5.2 related to the provision of bicycle parking. As discussed in Impact T-3 above, construction work would require the temporary closure of the westbound travel lane and north sidewalk on Allston Way, adjacent to the project site. During this temporary travel lane and sidewalk closure, bicyclists and pedestrians would need to be directed to alternative routes in order to avoid a potentially significant impact. Without mitigation, the project would not be consistent with DAP Goal AC-2 to give

Environmental Impact Report 185 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project pedestrians priority in Downtown and Goal AC-5 to promote bicycling in Downtown maintaining and enhancing safe, attractive and convenient bicycle circulation.

MITIGATION MEASURES With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, the applicant would coordinate with the City to identify a satisfactory solution and accommodate the short‐ and long‐term plans for pedestrian and bicycle activity near and around the project site during construction. Therefore, construction-related impacts on the pedestrian and bicycle systems would be less than significant after mitigation. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T-4, the applicant would integrate traffic safety measures in the design of the parking garage driveway in order to minimize potential impacts to pedestrians and bicyclist near the project site.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With the implementation of temporary traffic control and public information strategies and well as the establishment of driveway safety measures as described in Mitigation Measures T-3 and T-4, this impact would be less than significant without additional mitigation. This would ensure project consistency with DAP Policy DAP Policies AC-2.1 and AC-2.2 regarding pedestrian safety and access to the Downtown and DAP Goal AC-5 promote bicycling in Downtown. Cumulative Impacts LOS Impacts – Cumulative plus Project Table 34 presents intersection delay and LOS under the Cumulative plus Project traffic scenario.

Table 34 Vehicles Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative plus Project Conditions Cumulative plus Cumulative Conditions Project Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Cumulative AM Peak PM Peak Considerable Hour Hour Impact Hour Hour Contribution # Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Yes/No Delay LOS Delay LOS Yes/No 1 Martin Luther King Jr. 40.4 D 36.4 D No 40.4 D 36.6 C No Way/University Ave 2 Martin Luther King Jr. 16.8 B 16.3 B No 16.9 B 16.5 B No Way/Allston Way 3 Milvia Street/ 51.0 D 16.8 B No 53.2 D 17.0 B No Allston Way 4 Shattuck Avenue/ 43.6 D >80.0 F Yes 43.7 D >80.0 F No University Ave (1.18) (1.18) 5 Shattuck Avenue/ 18.6 B 22.7 C No 18.9 B 22.8 C No Center Street 6 Shattuck Avenue/ 28.6 C 20.4 C No 29.1 C 20.9 C No Allston Way 7 Shattuck Avenue/ 13.2 B 18.8 B No 13.3 B 18.8 B No Bancroft Way Notes: Bold indicates intersection operating at unacceptable level of service (LOS E or LOS F). “-“ indicates not applicable. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2017

186 Environmental Impact Analysis Transportation/Traffic

As shown in Table 8, the intersection of Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue would operate at an unacceptable LOS F under Cumulative (year 2040) traffic conditions and would continue operating at LOS F with the addition of traffic generated by the project (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). A significant cumulative impact at this signalized intersection was not anticipated in the DAP EIR. The intersection is projected to operate at LOS F with greater than 80 seconds of delay and a v/c ratio of 1.18 during the weekday PM peak hour under Cumulative Conditions. However, the addition of traffic generated by the project would merely increase intersection average delay by 0.4 seconds and would increase the v/c ratio by less than 0.01 during the weekday PM peak hour. The addition of project traffic would not exceed traffic load and capacity thresholds established in the City’s Guidelines for Development of Traffic Impact Reports of an increase in three or more seconds of delay and 0.01 or more increase in v/c ratio. Therefore, the project would not considerably contribute to a significant cumulative impact at the Shattuck Avenue/University Avenue intersection during the weekday PM peak hour. In addition, Table 8 shows that cumulative growth would not result in a significant impact at other Downtown Area intersections. This result is consistent with DAP EIR’s analysis, which found a less than significant impact at these intersections after implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-2, TRA-5, TRA-6, and TRA-7. Therefore, the project would not considerably contribute to a significant cumulative impact to traffic flow at any intersection under Cumulative plus Project Conditions. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The project would not considerably contribute to a significant cumulative impact before mitigation.

Construction from Multiple Projects Construction on several different sites in the Downtown Area (e.g., 2129 Shattuck Avenue and 2211 Harold Way) could occur simultaneously, causing a potentially significant cumulative impact to vehicle, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation.

MITIGATION MEASURE With implementation of Mitigation Measure T‐3, the applicant would coordinate construction activities with nearby projects to minimize overall disruptions and ensure that overall circulation is maintained to the extent possible, with particular focus on ensuring transit, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity. Coordinating project construction schedules within the area would minimize the combined impacts on the public and community. Coordination typically involves scheduling project construction activities to ensure that adequate capacity remains available to accommodate the anticipated travel demand and that there is sufficient signage and wayfinding and safe paths of travel available for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users in the area. Therefore, the cumulative construction-related impact on the transportation system would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure T-3 incorporated.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3 identified above, construction of the proposed project would not considerably contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to circulation.

Environmental Impact Report 187 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

This page intentionally left blank.

188 Energy Transportation/Traffic

5 Energy

This section evaluates the project’s energy use, consistent with the requirements of Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.

5.1 Energy Use and Conservation

Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(2) and Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to discuss the potential for a project to result in impacts related to energy consumption and/or conservation. A project may have the potential to cause such impacts if it would result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, including electricity, natural gas, or transportation fuel supplies and/or resources. The project’s anticipated energy demand (including fuel consumption), energy conserving features, and required mitigation measures that have an effect on energy conservation are evaluated in this section to determine whether the project would result in unnecessary or wasteful energy consumption. The discussion of the project’s anticipated energy demand includes natural gas, electricity, and fuel consumption during construction and operation of the project. 5.1.1 Existing Conditions State and Regional Energy Consumption California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the United States, ranked 49th in the nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate (U.S. Energy Information Administration [U.S. EIA] 2014). California used 295,405 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity in 2015 (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2017) and 2,309,759 million cubic feet of natural gas in 2014, of which, 401,172 million cubic feet were consumed by residential users (U.S. EIA 2015). In addition, Californians presently consume nearly 18 billion gallons of motor vehicle fuels per year (CEC 2014). The single largest end-use sector for energy consumption in California is transportation (38.7 percent), followed by industry (24.4 percent), commercial (18.6 percent), and residential (18.3 percent) (U.S. EIA 2014). The majority of California’s electricity is generated in-state with approximately 34 percent imported from the Northwest and Southwest U.S. in 2015 (CEC 2017). It is estimated that 27 percent of California’s electricity supply in 2016 came from renewable energy sources, such as wind (27,000GWh), solar photovoltaic (PV) (16,000 GWh), geothermal (13,000 GWh), and biomass (8,000 GWh) (CEC 2016a). Senate Bill (SB) 350, adopted in October 2015, requires that renewables supply 50 percent of retail electricity by 2030. Self- generation using rooftop solar PV and increased appliance energy efficiency has resulted in a decline in state energy total system power in 2015, a trend that is expected to continue (CEC 2016a). California’s existing natural gas supply portfolio is regionally diverse and includes supplies from California sources (onshore and offshore), Southwestern U.S. supply sources (the Permian, Anadarko, and San Juan basins), the Rocky Mountains, and Canada (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2016). California natural gas demand, including volumes not

Environmental Impact Report 189 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project served by utility systems, is expected to decrease at a rate of 1.4 percent per year from 2016 to 2035. Residential gas demand is expected to decrease at an annual average rate of 0.5 percent due to aggressive energy efficiency programs (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2016). To reduce statewide vehicle emissions, California requires that all motorists use California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), which is sourced almost exclusively from in-state refineries. Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California with 15.1 billions of gallons sold in 2015 and is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (CEC 2016b). Diesel is the second most used fuel in California with 4.2 billion gallons sold in 2015 and is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and construction and heavy duty military vehicles (CEC 2016c). Both gasoline and diesel are primarily petroleum-based and their consumption releases greenhouse gases, including CO2 and NOX. The transportation sector is the single largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California, accounting for 37 percent of all inventoried emissions in 2013 (CARB 2015). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California. The Code applies to the building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and water-heating and lighting systems of buildings and appliances. It provides guidance on construction techniques to maximize energy conservation and minimum efficiency standards for a variety of building elements, including appliances, heating and cooling equipment, and insulation for doors, pipes, walls and ceilings. CALGreen sets targets for: energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills, and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design. Electricity and natural gas service for the project would be provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), which provides natural gas and electric service to approximately 16 million people throughout a 70,000-square mile service area in northern and central California (PG&E 2017). PG&E’s power mix consists of approximately 30 percent renewable energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric). Regulatory Setting

Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under the Act, consumers and businesses can obtain federal tax credits for purchasing fuel efficient appliances and products, including buying hybrid vehicles, building energy efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are available for the installation of qualified fuel cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power equipment.

State California Energy Commission. The California Energy Commission (CEC) was created in 1974 to serve as the state's primary energy policy and planning agency. The CEC is tasked with reducing energy costs and environmental impacts of energy use - such as greenhouse gas emissions - while ensuring a safe, resilient, and reliable supply of energy. State of California Integrated Energy Policy (SB 1389). In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan every two

190 Energy Transportation/Traffic years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicles miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. The CEC adopted the 2013 Integrated Energy Policy Report on February 20, 2014. The 2013 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessment of a variety of issues, including: . Ensuring that the state has sufficient, reliable, and sage energy infrastructure to meet current and future energy demands; . Monitoring publicly-owned utilities’ progress towards achieving 10-year energy efficiency targets; defining and including zero-net-energy goals in state building standards; . Overcoming challenges to increased use of geothermal heat pump/ground loop technologies and procurement of biomethane; . Using demand response to meet California’s energy needs and integrate renewable technologies; . Removing barriers to bioenergy development; planning for California’s electricity infrastructure needs given potential retirement of power plants and the closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station; . Estimating new generation costs for utility-scale renewable and fossil-fueled generation; . Planning for new or upgraded transmission infrastructure; . Monitoring utilities’ progress in implementing past recommendations related to nuclear power plants; . Tracking natural gas market trends; . Implementing the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program; and, . Addressing the vulnerability of California’s energy supply and demand infrastructure to the effects of climate change; and planning for potential electricity system needs in 2030.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32). Assembly Bill 32 (Health and Safety Code Sections 38500–38599; AB 32), also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commits the state to achieving year 2000 GHG emission levels by 2010 and year 1990 levels by 2020. To achieve these goals, AB 32 tasked the California Public Utilities Commission and CEC with providing information, analysis, and recommendations to the California Air Resources Board regarding ways to reduce GHG emissions in the electricity and natural gas utility sectors. California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards). California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 comprises the California Energy Code, which was adopted to ensure that building construction, system design and installation achieve energy efficiency. The California Energy Code was first established in 1978 by the CEC in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption, and applies to energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting in new residential and non-residential buildings. The standards are updated periodically to increase

Environmental Impact Report 191 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project the baseline energy efficiency requirements. The 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings and include requirements to enable both demand reductions during critical peak periods and to allow for future solar electric and thermal system installations. Although it was not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, electricity production by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and energy efficient buildings require less electricity. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions. California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part II, CALGreen). On July 17, 2008 the California Building Standards Commission adopted the California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen in Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code) for all new construction statewide. Originally a volunteer measure, the Code became mandatory in 2010 and the most recent update (2016) went into effect on January 1, 2017. CALGreen sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills, and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including eco-friendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. The 2016 CALGreen Code includes mandatory measures for non-residential development related to site development; water use; weather resistance and moisture management; construction waste reduction, disposal, and recycling; building maintenance and operation; pollutant control; indoor air quality; environmental comfort; and outdoor air quality. Mandatory measures for residential development pertain to green building; planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; environmental quality; and installer and special inspector qualifications. Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350). The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350) was passed by California Governor Brown on October 7, 2015, and establishes new clean energy, clean air, and greenhouse gas reduction goals for the year 2030 and beyond. SB 350 establishes a greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels for the State of California, further enhancing the ability for the state to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. Renewable Portfolio Standard (SB 1078 and SB 107). Established in 2002 under SB 1078, the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was amended under SB 107 to require accelerated energy reduction goals by requiring that by the year 2010, 20 percent of electricity sales in the state be served by renewable energy resources. In years following its adoption, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed, requiring electricity retail sellers to provide 33 percent of their service loads with renewable energy by the year 2020. In 2011, SB X1-2 was signed, aligning the RPS target with the 33 percent requirement by the year 2020. This new RPS applied to all state electricity retailers, including publically owned utilities, investor- owned utilities, electrical service providers, and community choice aggregators. All entities included under the RPS are required to adopt the RPS 20 percent by year 2020 reduction goal by the end of 2013, adopt a reduction goal of 25 percent by the end of 2016, and meet the 33 percent reduction goal by the end of 2020. In addition, the Air Resources Board, under Executive Order S-21-09, was required to adopt regulations consistent with these 33 percent renewable energy targets.

192 Energy Transportation/Traffic

Local Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City’s CAP sets the goal of reducing building energy use emissions by 33% below 2000 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (Berkeley 2009b). The CAP includes the following goals to achieve those targets: . Goal 1: Increase green buildings in the new construction & remodel market . Goal 2: Enhance energy services & standards for existing residential properties . Goal 3: Enhance energy services & standards for existing commercial properties . Goal 4: Increase residential and commercial renewable energy use . Goal 5: Increase energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public buildings

Building Energy Saving Ordinance (BESO). The City’s BESO requires Berkeley building owners to complete energy efficiency opportunity assessments and publicly report the building's energy efficiency information with the goal of assisting building owners save energy and motivating them to participate in whole-building energy efficiency programs, such as Energy Upgrade California (City of Berkeley n.d.). 5.1.2 Analysis of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance The proposed project would involve the use of energy during its construction and operational phases, including natural gas, electricity, and gasoline. Energy use during the construction phase would be in the form of fuel consumption (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting. In addition, temporary grid power may also be provided to any temporary construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Long-term operation of the project would require permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas service to power internal and exterior building lighting, and heating and cooling systems. The increase in vehicle trips associated with the project also would increase fuel consumption in Berkeley. Electricity and Natural Gas. Table 27 shows the project’s estimated electricity and natural gas demand compared to statewide demand. Electricity and natural gas consumption were estimated using CalEEMod, as described in Section 4.1, Air Quality. Based on the modeling of the project’s air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions in CalEEMod, it is estimated that the proposed residences would collectively use 2.4 million cubic feet of natural gas per year and 1,230 megawatt-hours of electricity per year (see Appendix 3 within Appendix A to this EIR, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Residential energy use is assumed to account for all operational energy use by the project; because the project would result in a net decrease in commercial floor area, commercial energy consumption would not increase relative to existing retail and office uses. As shown in Table 27, the project’s natural gas consumption would represent approximately 0.0001 percent of statewide annual demand, and electricity consumption would represent approximately 0.0004 percent of statewide annual demand.

Environmental Impact Report 193 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Table 35 Project Energy Use Relative to Statewide Energy Use Annual Project- Project Percent of Form of Related Energy Annual Statewide Statewide Energy Energy Units Use Energy Use Use Electricity Megawatt hours 1,2301 295,405,0002 0.0004% Natural Gas Billions of cubic feet 0.00241 2,3133 0.0001% 1 CalEEMod output converted from thousand British thermal units to billions of cubic feet (Appendix 3 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). 2 California Energy Commission 2017a. 3 California Energy Commission 2017b.

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel. Fuel consumption from the use of motor vehicles would account for a large portion of the project’s energy use. Table 28 shows the project’s estimated annual operational fuel consumption due to vehicle travel. Fuel consumption was estimated based on the CalEEMod results for the default fleet vehicle mix and the total annual mitigated annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (see Appendix 3 within Appendix A to this EIR, the Infill Environmental Checklist), and average fuel efficiencies for each vehicle category. Based on these assumptions, the project would result in the consumption of approximately 56,659 gallons of vehicle fuel per year during operation, which represents approximately 0.0003 percent of annual statewide fuel consumption. In addition, construction activities would also result in short-term fuel consumption from worker trips and materials hauling trips.

Table 36 Project Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption Average Fuel Total Annual Fuel Percent of Annual Vehicle Efficiency Consumption Vehicle Type Vehicle Trips1 Miles Traveled2 (miles/gallon)3 (gallons) Passenger Cars 55.9% 555,393 23.3 23,837 Light/Medium Trucks 34.0% 337,806 17.1 19,755 Heavy Trucks/Other 9.5% 94,387 7.3 12,930 Motorcycles 0.6% 5,961 43.4 137 Total 100% 993,547 -- 56,659 State Motor Vehicle Fuels 18,019,000,000 Project Percent of Statewide Energy Use 0.0003% 1 Percent of vehicle trips found in Table 4.3 “Trip Type Information” in CalEEMod outputs (see Appendix 3 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). 2 Mitigated annual VMT found in Table 4.2 “Trip Summary Information” in CalEEMod outputs (see Appendix 3 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Annual VMT per vehicle type = Mitigated annual VMT * Percent of vehicle trips per vehicle type. 3 Source: U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2013. National Transportation Statistics 2013, Tables 4-12 and 4- 13. Washington DC. Vehicle classes provided in CalEEMod do not correspond exactly to vehicle classes in USDOT fuel consumption data, except for motorcycles. Therefore, it was assumed that passenger cars correspond to the light-duty, short-base vehicle class, light/medium trucks correspond to the light-duty long-base vehicle class, and heavy trucks/ other correspond to the single unit, 2-axle 6-tire or more class. Note: Total may not add up due to rounding.

Appendix F Requirements and Energy Conservation Standards. Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines requires inclusion in an EIR of relevant information that addresses “potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy”(Public Resources Code Section 21100[b][3]). Although the CEQA Guidelines do not include formal thresholds

194 Energy Transportation/Traffic for evaluating the significance of potential energy-related impacts, the following discussion addresses direct energy impacts of the project as framed in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines by evaluating whether the project would result in the wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy or the potential need for new energy-related infrastructure, the construction or operation of which would have significant impacts.

1. Would the project result in the wasteful and inefficient use of non-renewable resources during construction and operation of the project? Project operation would result in the estimated annual consumption of 1,230 megawatt- hours of electricity, 2.4 million cubic feet of natural gas, and 56,659 gallons of vehicle fuel each year. The project would be subject to energy conservation requirements in the 2016 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations), as embodied in enforceable conditions of approval. The 2016 Title 24 standards, which are 28 percent stronger than the previous 2013 standards for residential buildings, would apply to a variety of building elements such as water, space heating, and cooling equipment; lighting systems; insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings; and appliances. In addition, as discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the proposed building would have energy-efficiency and renewable energy features sufficient to attain a LEED Gold (or equivalent) rating. These would include solar-powered water heating, solar shading for residential units, and low emissivity glass to minimize the need for building cooling. Adherence to Title 24 and LEED Gold requirements would ensure that the project would not result in wasteful and inefficient use of non- renewable resources due to building operation.

2. Would the project result in the need for new systems or substantial alterations to electrical, natural gas, or communication systems infrastructure, the construction or operation of which would have significant impacts? Construction of new energy infrastructure or substantial alteration of existing energy infrastructure to expand capacity can result in potentially significant environmental impacts. To determine whether this project would require substantial alteration to existing infrastructure or construction of new infrastructure, the project’s operational energy demands were estimated and compared to statewide demand. Based on the comparisons of project electricity, natural gas, and fuel demand to statewide demand for these resources shown in Table 27 and Table 28, the project’s energy demand would result in a nominal increase in statewide energy demand. Furthermore, California’s use of non-renewable electricity and natural gas are expected to continue to decline as a proportion of overall energy demand due to stringent energy efficiency measures and a mandated increase in renewable energy use that would serve to offset any increase in non- renewable energy use resulting from the project. Therefore, the project would not result in the need for construction of new major facilities or substantial alteration of existing facilities to meet the project’s energy demands. Cumulative Impacts. The project, in combination with planned and pending development in the area as listed in Table 7 in Section 3, Environmental Setting, would contribute incrementally to adverse effects associated with energy resource demand and conservation. Future development would have the cumulative effect of increasing local and regional energy demands, resulting in potential considerable impacts to energy conservation.

Environmental Impact Report 195 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

However, like the project, discretionary actions requiring agency approval are required to comply with local, regional, state, and federal policies designed to reduce wasteful energy consumption, and improve overall energy conservation and sustainability. For instance, all local projects involving the development of new buildings must be designed to conform to CALGreen and the 2016 California Energy Code and the City’s BESO. Further, these projects are/would be operated and maintained by private utility companies, such as PG&E, which plan for anticipated growth. Electric and natural gas services are provided based on demand from consumers and expanded as needed to meet demand, consistent with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project contribution to cumulative impacts generated with projects provided in Section 3, Environmental Setting, would result in a significantly considerable wasteful use of energy resources, such that the project, and other cumulative projects, would have a cumulative effect on energy conservation. Cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant. Conclusion. Energy consumption associated with construction and operation of the project would not be expected to be wasteful or inefficient, and the project is not expected to result in the need for construction of new major facilities or substantial alteration of existing facilities to meet the project’s energy demands. Therefore, the project’s impacts to energy resources and conservation would be less than significant.

196 Project Alternatives Transportation/Traffic

6 Project Alternatives

This section identifies alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates their potential environmental impacts. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project, the relative environmental advantages and disadvantages of each are weighed and analyzed. As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this section examines a reasonable range of alternatives. Not every conceivable alternative must be addressed, nor do infeasible alternatives need to be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each alternative. These factors include: (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project, (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or reduce the project’s significant impacts, (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed project, and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. The discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either avoiding or substantially lessening any significant environmental effects of the project, even if the alternative would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b)). The analysis of alternatives need not be presented in the same level of detail as the assessment of the proposed project. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency or other plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries. Section 15183.3(e) of the CEQA Guidelines limits the range of alternatives that Infill EIRs must analyze: “the analysis of alternatives in an Infill EIR need not address alternative locations, densities, or building intensities.” As an Infill EIR, this document does not address alternative locations, densities, or building intensities. However, in the interest of public disclosure, a lower-density alternative is briefly discussed in Section 6.1, Alternatives Considered but Rejected. The analysis in this EIR shows that the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to construction noise; all other impacts of the project would either be less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Alternatives that would reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impact from construction noise are not feasible because of the site’s proximity to adjacent noise- sensitive receptors. For these reasons, the DAP EIR found that new construction in the entire Downtown Area would have a significant and unavoidable noise impact. Therefore, this section does not evaluate alternatives that would reduce construction noise, other than the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1). A Reduced Parking Alternative, Alternative 2, is intended to reduce the project’s adverse but less than significant impacts on traffic congestion. The following alternatives are evaluated in this section: . Alternative 1: No Project (no change to existing conditions) . Alternative 2: Reduced Parking

Environmental Impact Report 197 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

Table 29 provides a summary comparison of the development characteristics of the project and the alternatives. A more detailed description of the alternatives is included in the impact analysis for each alternative.

Table 37 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics Alternatives Reduced Characteristic Proposed Project No Project Alternative Parking Alternative Square Footage 196,342 Residential (274 38,700 Retail and Office 196,342 Residential (274 units); 10,000 Retail Commercial units); 10,000 Retail Commercial (206,342 total) Commercial (206,342 total) Maximum Building 18 stories/180 feet 2 stories 18 stories/180 feet Height Alteration of On-site Demolition of commercial No change Demolition of commercial Structures building building Off-Street Vehicle 103 spaces None 58 spaces Parking

Among the alternatives shown in Table 29, this section also identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative as required by the CEQA Guidelines. As indicated above, project alternatives should feasibly be able to attain “most of the basic objectives of the project” (Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines), even though implementation of the project alternatives might, to some degree, impede the attainment of those objectives or be more costly (Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines). The following are the project objectives as described in Section 2, Project Description. 1. Implement the Downtown Area Plan and Street & Open Space Improvement Plan by taking advantage of the full development potential under Zoning Ordinance standards and in turn, generating the revenue necessary to support the amenities and community benefits envisioned in the Downtown Area Plan, and maintaining the financial feasibility of the Project. 2. Generate much-needed, highly livable, transit-oriented, and sustainable market rate housing; and contribute substantial affordable housing (and/or fees to support development of such housing) as required by Berkeley Municipal Code Section 22.20.065. 3. Assist the State, region and the City to achieve established housing production goals. 4. Design a project that is feasible and contributes positively to the economic, social, and environmental goals of the City. 5. Establish a thriving, livable and diverse residential neighborhood that maximizes transit- oriented density and establish an environmentally sustainable community with 400-450 new residents. 6. Stimulate and activate the pedestrian environment along Allston Way by replacing the existing structure, with vibrant, walkable retail and pedestrian amenities and offering diverse, walk-to destinations. 7. Upgrade and revitalize an important urban block in Downtown Berkeley into a walkable, retail-centered, transit-friendly, residential block with active, safe and visually engaging pedestrian amenities consistent with the Downtown Area Plan and the Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan, while respecting key historic resources on adjacent blocks.

198 Project Alternatives Transportation/Traffic

8. Develop a superior building, integrating environmentally sustainable development practices in design, development, and construction. 9. Utilize ecologically beneficial landscaping techniques that complement and enhance the local environment and reinforce the City’s commitment to environmental sustainability, promote watershed health and create safe, comfortable, and inviting open spaces. 10. Actively encourage alternative modes of transportation by foot, by bicycle and via transit, for residents, employees, and retail customers by providing residents and employees with a range of Transportation Demand Management measures that are made possible by the income generated by the project’s size and scale, and prioritizing the safety, attractiveness and convenience of the pedestrian experience. 11. Generate significant new revenue streams for the City of Berkeley through increased property taxes and property-based revenues, economically sensitive revenues such as sales taxes and business license taxes, jobs creation, gross receipts taxes, and a new residential population that supports a successful mix of retail businesses, institutions and other attractions in Downtown Berkeley.

6.2 Alternatives Considered but Rejected

A reduced-height alternative to the proposed project was considered for analysis in this section. Such an alternative would reduce the new building’s height and massing such that it would not substantially intrude on westward scenic views from Campanile Way. However, because Section 15183.3(e) of the CEQA Guidelines does not require that an Infill EIR analyze alternative densities or building intensities, a reduced-height alternative would not be within the required reasonable range of alternatives to consider for analysis. Furthermore, the alternative would not reduce a significant impact identified in the EIR. As discussed in the Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A), the project would not have a significant impact on scenic vistas: California State law (Senate Bill 743, 2013) renders less than significant the aesthetic impacts of a mixed-use residential/commercial project (to the extent they are not also historic resource impacts) on an infill site within a transit priority area, such as the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, the project’s obstruction of views from the base of the Campanile and Campanile Way would not result in a substantial adverse change to a cultural landscape at UC Berkeley. Therefore, the reduced-height alternative was considered but rejected for further analysis of environmental impacts.

6.3 Alternative 1: No Project

This alternative assumes that the proposed project is not implemented and the existing two- story commercial building is left intact. This alternative assumes that the building occupancy would remain as is, including the Walgreens drug store and pharmacy on the ground floor and office uses on the second floor, while the basement would remain vacant. Because the No Project Alternative would retain the existing building, it would not involve construction activities and would avoid the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impact from construction noise. The alternative would also reduce the project’s less than significant impacts with mitigation from the emission of air pollutants and disturbance of the BART substructure during construction. By retaining the existing building on-site, this alternative would avoid the project’s less than significant impact with mitigation from introducing a new building whose design could be incompatible with nearby historic

Environmental Impact Report 199 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project buildings. In addition, by retaining existing retail commercial and office uses, this alternative would avoid the project’s increase in vehicle trips and further reduce the project’s less than significant impact on traffic congestion. No mitigation measures would be required for the No Project alternative. Overall impacts would be lower than those of the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project.

6.4 Alternative 2: Reduced Parking

6.4.1 Description This alternative assumes that the proposed building would provide fewer off-street parking spaces for vehicles than would the proposed project but the same intensity of residential and commercial development (274 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail commercial space). The garage would include 58 parking spaces as compared to 103 parking spaces under the proposed project. The 58 parking spaces would consist of the following: . 48 parking spaces in a three-tiered mechanical lift system . 4 independently accessible (non-tiered) parking spaces . 3 parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities . 3 vehicle share parking spaces

While the proposed project would include a two-level subterranean parking garage, this alternative would provide either a one- or two-level garage to accommodate 58 parking spaces and building support systems. This alternative would generally achieve all of the objectives of the proposed project. Although the substantial reduction in off-street parking spaces would be consistent with objectives to generate transit-oriented housing and to encourage alternative modes of transportation, it may not fully achieve Objective #4 to design a feasible project. Instead of the proposed 103 parking spaces, this alternative would provide substantially fewer (58) parking spaces for 274 residential units, which could arguably be inadequate to meet residential parking demand. 6.4.2 Impact Analysis a. Air Quality While this alternative would involve construction of a mixed-use building the same size as the proposed project, it would provide fewer parking spaces and may reduce the proposed subterranean parking garage from one to two levels. Therefore, the amount of grading and excavation could be less than for the proposed project and construction-related emissions may be reduced. Similar to the proposed project, the impact on air quality during construction would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure AIR-3 from the DAP EIR would continue to apply to further reduce air quality impacts from construction activities. As discussed in Section 6.4 of the Transportation Impact Analysis (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist), the Reduced Parking Alternative would reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by 44%. As a result, this alternative would decrease the mode share of automotive trips by 35% relative to the proposed project and would generate fewer auto person-trips and vehicle-trips. Conversely,

200 Project Alternatives Transportation/Traffic this alternative would increase the mode share of public transit and walking, thereby increasing transit users and reducing mobile emissions. Therefore, the Reduced Park Alternative would further reduce the project’s already less than significant impact related to operational air pollution. Both the project and this alternative would add sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of five permitted sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs). However, as shown in Table 12 in Section 4.1, Air Quality, a conservative screening analysis of exposure to TACs, performed in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s methodology, indicates that new residents would not be exposed to hazardous TAC levels. Similar to the project, the impact from TAC exposure would be less than significant. In addition, this alternative would generate the same population growth as would the project, consistent with the growth assumptions in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The impact related to consistency with the applicable clean air plan would still be less than significant. b. Cultural Resources Like the proposed project, this alternative would result in the demolition of the existing building at 2190 Shattuck Avenue and the construction of a new 18-story building with a mix of retail commercial and residential uses. Demolition of the existing building would not result in the loss of a historical resource. However, similar to the proposed project, the new mixed- use building’s design could be incompatible with nearby historic buildings. With implementation of mitigation measures CR-1a and CR-1b to modify slanted walls and the proportion of void to wall, this alternative would also have a less than significant impact on the integrity of historical resources including the adjacent Shattuck Hotel and the greater proposed Shattuck Avenue Downtown Historic District. Similar to the project, construction of this alternative would generate vibration during excavation for a parking garage, caisson drilling for the building foundation, and repaving of Allston Way; however, vibration levels would still not result in physical damage to nearby historic structures. Under this alternative, the new building would continue to be 18-stories high with a height of 180 feet (excluding rooftop architectural projections) and would obstruct views of the bay from the base of the UC Berkeley Campanile and Campanile Way. However, it would not result in a substantial adverse change to the cultural landscape of UC Berkeley’s Classical Core. Like the proposed project, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation. c. Geology and Soils Like the proposed project, this alternative would result in the demolition of the existing building at 2190 Shattuck Avenue and the construction of a new 18-story building with a mix of retail commercial and residential uses. This alternative would also include a subterranean parking garage up to two levels deep. The size, location, and type of foundation (mat concrete slab with drilled soldier piles along the outside of the eastern foundation wall) would be the same as under the proposed project. The foundation and building for this alternative would be no closer to the Strawberry Creek culvert than currently proposed. The potential impact to the culvert would be the same as under the proposed project: less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 to ensure proper temporary shoring and tieback during excavation and construction. The same as under the proposed project, the foundation for this alternative would be located within BART's zone of influence. Improper excavation and construction of this alternative within the BART zone of influence could damage or destabilize the adjacent

Environmental Impact Report 201 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

BART structures, resulting in the exposure of people to hazards. During excavation on-site, damage to the adjacent BART structures could occur if surrounding soils are not properly stabilized through temporary shoring, if the vertical or horizontal loads within the zone of influence are altered, or if the local groundwater table is lowered by more than two feet. Following excavation, construction of the project could damage or destabilize adjacent BART structures if the vertical or horizontal loading on either the BART structures or soils within the zone of influence are increased. To ensure that construction of this alternative would not adversely affect the adjacent BART structures, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would still be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would ensure consistency with BART’s General Guidelines for Design and Construction Over or Adjacent to BART’s Subway Structures and would prevent damage or destabilization of the adjacent BART structures during excavation and construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would ensure BART review and approval of final engineering and design plans prior to commencement of construction activities, which would eliminate or substantially reduce the potential for this alternative to adversely affect BART structures. This impact would be the same as under the proposed project and would remain less than significant with implementation of mitigation. d. Noise and Vibration Although this alternative would involve construction of a mixed-use building the same size as the proposed project, less intensive excavation may be necessary for the parking garage. Excavation for a potential one-level parking garage would incrementally reduce construction-related noise and vibration impacts. For construction noise, the applicant would also be required to implement a project-specific noise reduction program as described in Mitigation Measure NOI-5 of the DAP EIR, which requires appropriate time limits for construction (7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on weekends or holidays), the use of available control technology such as equipment mufflers and temporary noise barriers, locating stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from adjoining sensitive receptors, notification of neighbors, and other measures. However, similar to the project, the impact from construction noise would remain significant and unavoidable because of the extended duration of construction (approximately 27-months). As for the project, the impact from vibration would be less than significant with the use of administrative controls including notification of neighbors and appropriate scheduling of vibrating-generating activities would minimize exposure to perceptible vibration. This alternative would introduce the same on-site operational noise sources as would the proposed project: heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment; delivery trucks, and trash hauling trucks. Therefore, the impact from on-site operational noise would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant. The Reduced Parking Alternative would generate the same number of daily, weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour person-trips but would have a lower auto share and, therefore, generate fewer auto person-trips and vehicle trips. As described in Section 4.5, Transportation/Traffic, of the EIR, the proposed project would generate an estimated 431 daily vehicle trips, 33 A.M. peak hour trips, and 40 P.M. peak hour trips. This alternative would generate 279 daily vehicle trips (a 35 percent decrease), 21 A.M. peak hour trips (a 36 percent decrease), and 26 P.M. peak hour trips (a 35 percent decrease). Therefore, this alternative would generate less traffic noise than would the project and would further reduce the project’s already less than significant impact from the exposure of noise-sensitive receptors to traffic noise.

202 Project Alternatives Transportation/Traffic

Similar to the project, this alternative would introduce new residences in an area exposed to ambient noise exceeding the City’s normally acceptable level of 60 dBA Ldn for new residential land uses. Furthermore, residences would be exposed to interior noise levels in excess of the City’s 45 dBA Ldn standard. Mitigation Measure N-5 would still apply to this alternative to ensure that building materials reduce interior noise to no greater than 45 dBA Ldn, reducing the noise impact to on-site residences to less than significant. e. Transportation/Traffic Based on available research, it is estimated that the Reduced Parking Alternative would generate the same number of daily, weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour person-trips but would have a lower auto mode share and, therefore, would generate fewer vehicle-trips (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill Environmental Checklist). Table 30 details the estimated reductions or additions to mode shares. As shown, this alternative would reduce overall auto mode share by eight percent and an increase in transit and walk mode share by four percent compared to the project. Daily vehicle trips would be reduced by 35 percent. People that would have been driving would shift to other modes, such as transit and walking.

Table 38 Person-Trip Generation Estimates by Mode - Comparison Mode Vehicle Description Auto Transit Walk Bike Other Total Trips Mode Share Proposed Project1 23% 32% 32% 5% 8% 100% 1.09 AVO Reduced Parking 15% 36% 36% 5% 8% 100% 1.09 Alternative2 AVO Net New Project Person-Trips – Proposed Project A.M. Peak Hour 36 52 52 8 12 160 33 P.M. Peak Hour 44 63 63 9 15 194 40 Net New Project Person-Trips – Reduced Parking Alternative A.M. Peak Hour 24 58 58 8 12 160 21 P.M. Peak Hour 28 71 71 9 15 194 26 Difference (number of Person-Trips) A.M. Peak Hour -12 +6 +6 0 0 0 -12 P.M. Peak Hour -16 +8 +8 0 0 0 -14 Notes: AVO = Average Vehicle Occupancy. 1 Residential journey‐to‐work commute mode share and average vehicle occupancy shown for the project’s census tract, census tract 4229. 2 Auto mode share reduced by eight percentage points and transit and walk mode share increased by four percentage points each, to account for mode shift resulting from the proposed reduction in parking supply with the Reduced Parking Alternative relative to the project. Sources: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2017; US Census American Community Survey Five‐Year (2010‐2014) Estimates.

Traffic Congestion

Relative to the project, the Reduced Parking Alternative would contribute fewer trips to the surrounding roadway network. Like the proposed project, traffic volumes with the project under Baseline and Cumulative Conditions would not exceed the traffic load and capacity thresholds for the surrounding roadway network. Therefore, this alternative would further

Environmental Impact Report 203 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project reduce the proposed project’s already less than significant impact to vehicle intersection operating conditions.

Construction This alternative would involve similar construction activities to those of the proposed project. Construction activities that could temporarily affect the circulation system include the staging and delivery of construction materials and equipment, removal of construction debris, and parking for construction workers. Similar to the project, construction of the Reduced Parking Alternative would result in reduced roadway capacity, temporary closure of the westbound travel lane and north sidewalk along Allston Way, and relocation of AC Transit bus stops. Construction activities could potentially result in a significant impact to traffic, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation, especially if they take place concurrently with construction related to other developments in the vicinity of the project site. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Parking Alternative would be required to implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan per Mitigation Measure T-3 as described in Section 4.5, Transportation/Traffic. With implementation of this plan, this alternative would also have a less than significant impact on circulation during construction.

Pedestrian Safety Similar to the project, the Reduced Parking Alternative would introduce a new curb cut and driveway across the Allston Way sidewalk to access a new on-site garage. Vehicles accessing the garage would need to cross the Allston Way sidewalk, which currently experiences moderate to high levels of pedestrian volumes throughout the day. Relative to the proposed project, this alternative would generate 35 percent fewer vehicle trips to and from the site and therefore has the potential to result in fewer vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts at the new driveway. This reduction in vehicle trips relative to the project would incrementally reduce traffic hazards to pedestrians. However, drivers might still pull across the sidewalk and obstruct pedestrian travel while attempting to enter the vehicle travel lane. Mitigation Measure T-4 would be required to minimize vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. As for the project, the impact on pedestrian safety from design hazards would be less than significant with mitigation.

Loading Conflicts Similar to the project, the Reduced Parking Alternative would introduce a 25-foot-long commercial loading zone next to the new driveway on Allston Way and would not have a dedicated passenger loading zone. Commercial and passenger loading activity associated with the alternative would introduce potential conflicts with other automobiles, buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Spillover loading activity could lead to illegal parking in red curb zones or double-parking. Large trucks parked in the commercial loading zone could temporarily block access to and from the new garage. Mitigation Measure T-5 would be required to minimize conflicts with buses and bicyclists from the alternative’s commercial and passenger loading activity. As for the project, the impact from loading conflicts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Emergency Access Because this alternative would generate less traffic than would the project, and the project’s contribution to traffic would increase overall emergency response times by less than two seconds at studied intersections, it would result in a smaller increase in emergency response times (Kittelson & Associates 2017; see Appendix 4 within Appendix A, the Infill

204 Project Alternatives Transportation/Traffic

Environmental Checklist). Therefore, operation of this alternative would also have a less than significant impact to emergency vehicle access. However, as for the project, construction of this alternative would temporarily reduce roadway capacity by closing a travel lane and sidewalk on Allston Way. Mitigation Measure T-3 would still be required to address emergency vehicle routing during construction, among other circulation issues. Similar to the project, the construction-related impact on emergency access would be less than significant after mitigation.

Transit Service Relative to the project, this alternative would increase the mode share of public transit from 32 percent to 36 percent of person-trips associated with the new mixed-use building. During A.M. and P.M. peak hours, the number of new transit users would increase by no greater than eight riders. Similar to the project, this alternative would incrementally increase transit ridership and would not result in overcrowding. However, construction would still involve temporary relocation of the existing AC Transit bus stop for lines 12 and 88. Vehicles turning into and out of the new driveway also could increase congestion on Allston Way, delaying transit service. Transit impacts would still be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures T-3, T-4, and T-5. These measures would require coordination with the City, AC Transit, and BART to accommodate the short‐ and long‐term plans for bus layovers and loading zones during construction; maintenance of adequate sight distance and installation of convex mirrors to improve the visibility of vehicles leaving the driveway; and minimizing illegal parking for loading activities.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation This alternative would provide the same sidewalk and frontage improvements as the proposed project on Allston Way, enhancing local pedestrian circulation. However, as for the project, a new driveway to access the on-site garage would introduce design hazards for pedestrians without mitigation. Construction also would require temporary closure of bicycle and pedestrian access on Allston Way, diverting people to alternate routes of travel. Mitigation Measure T-3 would still be required to maintain pedestrian and bicycle connectivity during construction, to the extent possible, and Mitigation Measure T-4 would be required to minimize design hazards associated with the new driveway. As for the project, the impact to pedestrian and bicycle circulation would be less than significant after this mitigation.

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative

Table 31 compares the physical impacts for each of the alternatives to the physical impacts of the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would be the overall environmentally superior alternative since it would avoid all project impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not achieve the basic project objectives as stated in Section 2, Project Description. Among the development options, Alternative 2 (Reduced Parking) would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, as it would reduce vehicle trips such that air quality, traffic noise, and circulation impacts would be reduced. However, impacts related to air quality, traffic noise, and circulation were all found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. The Reduced Parking Alternative would not change any impact conclusions. This alternative would still require mitigation for air pollutant emissions during construction, design compatibility with historic buildings, structural stability of the Strawberry Creek culvert

Environmental Impact Report 205 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project and BART substructure, construction noise, construction-related impacts to circulation, and pedestrian safety.

Table 39 Impact Comparison of Alternatives

Impact Classification1

Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Issue Proposed Project No Project Reduced Parking

Air Quality Less than Significant with + =/+ Mitigation (Less than (Less than Significant with Significant) Mitigation)

Cultural Resources Less than Significant with + = Mitigation (Less than (Less than Significant with Significant) Mitigation)

Geology and Soils Less than Significant with + = Mitigation (Less than (Less than Significant with Significant) Mitigation)

Noise and Vibration Significant and Unavoidable + = (Less than (Significant and Unavoidable) Significant)

Transportation/ Less than Significant with + =/+ Traffic Mitigation (Less than (Less than Significant with Significant) Mitigation)

+ Superior to the proposed project (reduced level of impact) - Inferior to the proposed project (increased level of impact) = Similar level of impact to the proposed project 1 Where multiple impact conclusions are reached, the “worst” impact conclusion is listed in the table.

206 References and Report Preparers Transportation/Traffic

7 References and Report Preparers

7.1 Bibliography

[Alameda CTC] Alameda County Transportation Commission. Funding. Available at: http://www.alamedactc.org/app_pages/view/5272. Accessed January 2017. [ARG] Architectural Resources Group. 2016. Historical Resources Technical Report, 2190 Shattuck Avenue. December 2016. Archives & Architecture. 2015. Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historical Context and Survey. Prepared for the City of Berkeley, Department of Planning and Development. September 2015. Available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _LPC/2015-09-03_LPC_ATT1_Shattuck%20Survery_Draft%20Final%20Report.pdf Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. Risk and Hazard Screening Analysis Process Flow Chart. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning- and-research/ceqa/updated-screening-approach-flow-chart_may-2012.pdf?la=en. Accessed March 23, 2017. _____. 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment- status. Accessed March 23, 2017. _____. 2017b. Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 2017. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air- plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed May 30, 2017. _____. 2017c. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed May 30, 2017. [BART] Bay Area Rapid Transit. 2003. General Guidelines for Design and Construction Over or Adjacent to BART’s Subway Structures. Available at: https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Gen_Guide_Subway_062012.pdf. Accessed June 2017.

Berkeley, City of. 2001a. City of Berkeley General Plan – Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element. April 2001. Available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Planning_and_Development/Home/General_Plan_- _Disaster_Preparedness_and_Safety_Element.aspx

_____. 2001b. Berkeley Draft General Plan EIR. Available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Planning_and_Development/Home/BERKELEY_DRAF T_GENERAL_PLAN_EIR_-_Table_of_Contents.aspx

_____. 2009a. Berkeley Downtown Area Plan, Environmental Impact Report. April 2009. Available at:

Environmental Impact Report 207 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Downtown_Area_Plan/d ap_-_EIR.aspx

_____. 2009b. Climate Action Plan. June 2009. Available at: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/climate/

_____. 2011. Emergency Access and Evacuation Network. June 2011. Available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/WildfireEvacuation/. Accessed June 2017.

_____. 2012a. Acheson Commons Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. May 2012. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _ZAB/2012-05-30%20-%20DEIR%20-%20256%20pages.pdf

_____. 2012b. Downtown Area Plan. Available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _DAP/FINAL_x-DAP%20document_120329.pdf

_____. 2012c. Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines. Available at: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=14260

_____. 2013. 1931-35 Addison Street Zoning Adjustments Board Staff Report. June 27, 2013. http://www.berkeleyside.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2013-06- 27_ZAB_Staff-Report_1931-35-Addison.pdf

_____. 2014. 1974 University Avenue Zoning Adjustments Board Staff Report. August 28, 2014. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/UPLOADEDFILES/PLANNING_AND_DEVELOPMEN T/LEVEL_3_-_ZAB/2014-08- 28_ZAB_STAFF%20REPORT_1974%20UNIVERSITY.PDF

_____. 2015a. 2211 Harold Way Mixed-Use Project, Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. March 2015. Available at: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Boar d/2211_Harold.aspx

_____. 2015b. 2211 Harold Way Mixed-Use Project Zoning Adjustments Board Staff Report. September 30, 2015. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _ZAB/2015-09-30_ZAB_Staff%20Report_2211%20Harold.pdf

_____. 2015c. City of Berkeley 2015-2023 Housing Element. Available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Commissions/Commission_for_Planning/2015- 2023%20Berkeley%20Housing%20Element_FINAL.pdf

_____. 2016a. 1950 Addison Street Zoning Adjustments Board Staff Report. April 14, 2016. http://www.berkeleyside.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-04-14_ZAB_Staff- Report_1950-Addison.pdf

_____. 2016b. 2067 University Avenue Zoning Adjustments Board Staff Report. July 28, 2016. Available at:

208 References and Report Preparers Transportation/Traffic

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _ZAB/2016-07- 28_ZAB_ATT3_2067%20University_Notice%20of%20Public%20Hearing.pdf

_____. 2016c. 2121 Durant Avenue & 0 Bancroft Way Zoning Adjustments Board Staff Report. March 10, 2016. Available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _ZAB/2016-03- 10_ZAB_ATT4_2121%20Durant_Notice%20of%20Public%20Hearing.pdf

_____. 2016d. 2129 Shattuck Avenue Zoning Adjustments Board Staff Report. May 26, 2016. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _ZAB/2016-05-26_ZAB_Staff%20Report_2129%20Shattuck.pdf

California Department of Finance. 2016. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2016 with 2010 Census Benchmark. May 2016. Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ [CARB] California Air Resources Board. 2015. 2020 Business-as-Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection, 2014 Edition. May 2015. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm. Accessed January 2017. _____. 2017. Top 4 Summary. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed March 23, 2017. [CEC] California Energy Commission. 2014. Cal-Adapt Website. Available online at: http://cal-adapt.org/. Accessed January 2017. _____. 2016a. California Energy Commission-Tracking Progress: Renewable Energy- Overview. October 11, 2016. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/tracking_progress/documents/renewable.pdf Accessed December 2016. _____. 2016b. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/. Accessed December 2016

_____. 2016c. Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/diesel.html. Accessed December 2016

_____. 2016d. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Available at: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx. Accessed December 2016.

_____. 2016e. Gas Consumption by Entity. Available at: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx. Accessed December 2016.

_____. 2017. California Energy Almanac: 2015 Total Electricity System Power. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html. Accessed January 2017. California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2016. 2016 California Gas Report. Available at: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2016-cgr.pdf.

Environmental Impact Report 209 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

[CGS] California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. California Geological Survey Note 36. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Conservation.

_____. 2003. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Oakland West 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Alameda County, California – Seismic Hazard Zone Report 081. Available at: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Reports/SHZR/SHZR_081_Oakland_West.pdf

_____. 2008. Ground Motion Interpolator. Available at: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/PSHA/psha_interpolator.html. Accessed June 2017.

_____. 2017. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Available at: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/. Accessed June 2017.

Caltrans. 2016. SB743 Implementation. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/sb743.html. Accessed June 2017. [ENGEO] ENGEO Incorporated. 2016. Geotechnical Feasibility Report – 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project – Berkeley, California. October 2016.

JRP Historical Consulting. 2005. Historic Properties Inventory and Evaluation: AC Transit East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project.

National Park Service. 2002. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for San Pablo Bay, California. Available at: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=a23eb436f6ec4ad6982000dbaddea5ea. Accessed June 2017.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2006. Recommended Refinements to Trip Generation Methodology. April 2006. Available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_(new_site_map_walk- through)/Level_3_-_General/attachment%201%20Trip%20reduction%20memo.pdf

[OPR] Office of Planning and Research. 2016. Updating the Analysis of Transportation Impacts Under CEQA. February 2016. Available at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php

[PG&E] Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2017. Company Profile. Available at: https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page. Accessed February 2017.

Page & Turnbull. 2016. 2190 Shattuck Avenue: Memorandum of Significance and Integrity. Prepared for Creek Residential Trust, LLC. September 2016.

University of California, Berkeley. 2004. Landscape Heritage Plan, University of California, Berkeley. Available at: http://realestate.berkeley.edu/landscape-heritage-plan. Accessed March 2017.

210 References and Report Preparers Transportation/Traffic

[U.S. DOT] U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2013. National Transportation Statistics 2013, Tables 4-12 and 4-13. Washington DC. Available at: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/NTS_Entire_13Q4.pdf.

[U.S. EIA] U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. Accessed December 2016.

_____. 2015. Natural Gas Summary. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_dcu_SCA_a.htm. Accessed December 2016.

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region – Scientific Investigations Map 2918. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2006/2918/

USGS and California Geological Survey (CGS). 2006. Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States. Available at: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/

7.2 List of Preparers

This EIR was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., under contract to the City of Berkeley. Consultants involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal in Charge/Project Manager Jonathan Berlin, Environmental Planner/Assistant Project Manager Josephine Fong, Environmental Planner Matthew Long, Senior Environmental Scientist Smadar Levy, Environmental Planner Kari Zajac, Environmental Planner Karly Kaufman, Senior Environmental Planner Sally Schifman, Environmental Planner Lynette Leighton, Environmental Planner/Scientist Debra Jane Seltzer, Document Production Specialist

Environmental Impact Report 211 City of Berkeley Planning Department, Land Use Division 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project

This page intentionally left blank.

212