1500 san pablo avenue project - berkeley, … · i 1500 san pablo avenue project class 32 ceqa...

i

1500 SAN PABLO AVENUE PROJECT

Class 32 CEQA Exemption

Prepared for:

City of Berkeley

Department of Planning & Development

2120 Milvia Street

Berkeley, CA 94704

April 2016

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 1

PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 3

Existing Setting and Neighboring Land Uses ........................................................................ 3

Description of Project .............................................................................................................. 6

Project Construction ..............................................................................................................18

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CRITERIA ........................................................................................20

Class 32 (Infill Development) ................................................................................................20

Exceptions ..............................................................................................................................20

City of Berkeley – Standard Conditions of Approval for All Projects .................................21

CEQA EXEMPTION CHECKLIST ...................................................................................................23

Criterion Section 15332(a): General Plan and Zoning Consistency ...................................23

Criterion Section 15332(b): Project Location, Size, and Context ......................................26

Criterion Section 15332(c): Endangered, Rare of Threatened Species ..............................26

Criterion Section 15332(d): Traffic ......................................................................................27

Criterion Section 15332(d): Noise ........................................................................................36

Criterion Section 15332(d): Air Quality ...............................................................................58

Criterion Section 15332(d): Water Quality ...........................................................................68

EXCEPTIONS TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS CHECKLIST .......................................................73

Criterion 15300.2(a): Location .............................................................................................73

Criterion 15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact ............................................................................73

Criterion 15300.2(c): Significant Effect ...............................................................................75

Criterion 15300.2(d): Scenic Highway .................................................................................75

Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites .....................................................................75

Criterion 15300.2(f): Historical Resources ..........................................................................82

Criterion 15300.2: Other Potential Effects ..........................................................................85

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Traffic and Transportation – Level of Service Calculations

Appendix B: Traffic and Transportation – Updated Cumulative Analysis Memorandum

1500 SAN PABLO AVENUE PROJECT APRIL 2016

CLASS 32 CEQA EXEMPTION

ii

Appendix C: Noise

Appendix D: Air Quality

Tables

Table 1 Project Development Summary ................................................................................ 7

Table 2 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................29

Table 3 Automobile Trip Generation Summary ..................................................................30

Table 4 Trip Generation By Travel Mode .............................................................................31

Table 5 Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ........................32

Table 6 Future and Future Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service .............................33

Table 7 Definition of Acoustical Terms ..............................................................................37

Table 8 Maximum Sound Levels for Short-Term Operation (less than 10 days) of

Mobile Equipment (dBA) .........................................................................................42

Table 9 Maximum Sound Levels for Long-Term Operation (period of 10 days or

more) of Stationary Equipment (dBA) ....................................................................43

Table 10 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment (dBA) and a General

Assessment of Construction Noise ........................................................................45

Table 11 Construction Noise Levels at Different Distances ................................................46

Table 12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ..........................................52

Table 13 Vibration Criteria to Prevent Disturbance – RMS (Vdb) ........................................52

Table 14 Vibration Criteria to Prevent Damage to Structures .............................................53

Table 15 Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic volumes and Predicted Traffic

Noise ........................................................................................................................56

Table 16 Summary of Land-Use Input Parameters for CalEEModError! Bookmark not defined.

Table 17 Summary of Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Project Construction ..............60

Table 18 Summary of Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Project Operation ...................62

Table 19 Summary of the Health Risk Assessment for DPM and PM2.5 Emissions

during Project Construction ...................................................................................65

Table 20 Summary of Risks and Hazards from Nearby TAC SourcesError! Bookmark not defined.

Table 21 Summary of Cortese List Search Results for 1500 San Pablo Avenue ................76

Table 22 History of Hazardous Materials on the Project Site ..............................................78

APRIL 2016 1500 SAN PABLO AVENUE PROJECT


iii

Figures

Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. 4

Figure 2 Project Site Map ......................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3 Perspectives ............................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4 East Elevation ..........................................................................................................10

Figure 5 West Elevation .........................................................................................................11

Figure 6 Site Plan ...................................................................................................................12

Figure 7 Ground Floor – Townhomes / Basement – Mixed-Use Building ...........................13

Figure 8 Ground Floor – Mixed-Use Building .......................................................................14

Figure 9 Typical Floorplate – Mixed-Use Building ...............................................................15

Figure 10 Noise Land Use Compatibility Matrix ....................................................................40



iv



1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Project Title: 1500 San Pablo Avenue

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Berkeley

Land Use Planning Division

2120 Milvia Street

Berkeley, CA 94704

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Immanuel Bereket, Associate Planner

Land Use Planning Division

2120 Milvia Street

Berkeley, CA 94704

(510) 981-7410

4. Project Location:

1500 San Pablo Avenue (the southeast corner of San Pablo Avenue and Jones Street)

Assessor’s Parcel No. 59-2310-2-5

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

4Terra Investments

Attn: Amir Massih

95 Federal Street, Suite D

San Francisco, CA 94107-1412

6. Existing General Plan Designations:

Avenue Commercial and Low Medium Density Residential

7. Existing Zoning:

Limited Two-Family Residential District (R-1A) in the western portion of the site, and

West Berkeley Commercial District Provisions (C-W) in the eastern portion of the site.

8. Requested Permits:

Regular Design Review

Use Permits:

Mixed-use Development over 20,000 SF (BMC 23E.64.030.A)

Alcoholic Beverage Retail Sales (BMC 23E.64.030.A)

Alcoholic Beverage Service (BMC 23E.64.030.A)

Full Service Restaurant over 2,501 SF (BMC 23E.64.030.A)



2

159 Dwelling Units in C-W (BMC 23E.64.030.A)

Construction of more than 5,000 SF of new floor area (BMC 23E.64.050.B)

11 Dwelling units in R-1A (BMC 23D.20.030)

Demolition of an existing commercial building (BMC 23C.08.050)

Administrative Use Permits:

Alcoholic Beverage Service of beer and wine incidental to food service at quick

and full service restaurants (BMC 23E.64.030.A)

Quick Service Restaurants (not drive-through) (BMC 23E.64.030.A)

Demolition Permit (BMC 22.12.060)

Extend parapet height to above height limit to allow for the OSHA-required

railing for maintenance of rooftop mechanical equipment and the roof deck.

This is both the base project and the proposed. The proposed building height

above the average site grade is 62'2" for the ‘proposed’ project and 52'2" for

the ‘base’ project. The maximum building height measured from the lowest

point on the site is 64'7" for ‘proposed’ and 54'7" for the ‘base’. (BMC

23E.64.070.B)

Extending townhouse building height to 30', for both the ‘base’ project and the

‘proposed’ project. (BMC 23E.64.070.C)

Resume minimum distance between new curb cuts on 10th

Street closer than

required 75'. (BMC 23D.12.080.J)

Zoning Certificates:

Outdoor Café Seating (not abutting R-District)

Short fences along 10th

Street and Jones Street, and a 6-foot fence along

portion of south property line



3

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Existing Setting and Neighboring Land Uses

As shown in Figure 1, the project site is in the West Berkeley area of the City of Berkeley

(City). The project site is an approximately 1.71-acre lot, consisting of a single parcel

(Assessor’s Parcel Number 59-2310-2-5). The project site is bounded by a range of

residential and commercial buildings, including several one-to three-story multi-family

residential developments and mixed commercial uses, including retail and light industrial.

Regional access is provided by Interstate 80 (I-80), approximately 1.1 miles to the west. In

addition, the North Berkeley Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station is approximately 0.7

miles east of the project site on Sacramento Street, providing direct daily service between

San Francisco, Fremont, Millbrae, and Richmond. The site also benefits from Alameda-

Contra Costa (AC) Transit bus service along San Pablo Avenue.

The dominant existing land use in the commercial corridor is mixed commercial and retail

including restaurants, retail, a gas station, mixed-use commercial and apartments, and a

two-story hotel. The majority of buildings in the immediate area are residences of pre-war

vintage and one to two stories in height. Figure 2 shows the project site in relation to

neighboring land uses.

Consistent with the dominant uses in the area, the approximately 1.71-acre project site is

developed with a 24,000 square-foot former Cadillac-Volkswagen dealership building and

surface parking areas. The project site is composed of a single lot with split zoning

designation (see Figure 2). The eastern portion of the lot is within the Berkeley General

Plan’s West Berkeley Avenue Commercial land use designation and is zoned C-W. The

intent behind the C-W zoning designation is to increase the opportunities for housing and

mixed-use developments in commercial areas to support local retailing, pedestrian-

oriented uses and the use of transit lines in a manner that is compatible with adjacent

commercial, residential, and industrial areas.

The western portion of the lot is within Berkeley General Plan’s Low Medium Density

Residential land use designation and is zoned R-1A. The intent of the R-1A zoning is to

recognize and protect the existing pattern of low medium density residential areas and to

protect properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and air from adjacent

properties. The R-1A zone allows for a wide range of uses supportive to its stated intent,

including single-family and multi-family dwellings.

1500 San Pablo Avenue Project

Figure 1Project Vicinity Map

City of Berkeley, 2016

Not to Scale

FIFTH ST

TENTH ST

NINTH ST

EIGHTH ST

FOURTH ST

SIXTH ST

SEVENTH ST

PAGE ST

VIRGINIA ST

CURT

IS S

T

JONES STKAINS AVE

SECOND ST

CAMELIA ST

HEARST AVE

N

I80 WEST HW

YALLSTON WAY

BANCROFT WAY

TRAIL

DELAWARE ST

GILMAN ST

CHANNING WAY

HARRISON ST

E

CEDAR ST

RAMP

HOPKINS ST

STANNAGE AVE

ROSE ST

BO

NA

R ST

PERA

LTA

AVE

CH

ESTNU

T STB

RO

WN

ING

ST

FRANCISCO ST

FRO

NTA

GE R

D

BO

LIVAR

DR

OR

DWAY

ST

E

BYR

ON

ST

DWIGHT WAY

EASTSH

OR

E HW

Y

WEST ST

UNIVERSITY AVE OVERPASS

NEIL

SON

STADDISON ST

UNIVERSITY AVE

NO

RTHS

IDE

AVE

CHAUCER ST

S ST

LINCOLN STKAINS AVE

CU

RTIS ST

HEARST AVE

ADDISON ST

WW

FRO

NTA

GE R

D

ADA ST

Project Site

24

580

80

80

San PabloAv

Bay Bridge

EMERYVILLE

RICHMOND

BERKELEY

ALAMEDA

OAKLANDSANFRANCISCO

Project Area

N

10TH

ST.

JONES ST.

SAN

PABL

O AV

E.

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

R-1AC-W

R-1A

C-W

CEDAR ST.

GAS STATION1580

SAN PABLO

DW

ELLI

NG

2 ST

OR

Y10

41 C

EDAR

DW

ELLI

NG

2 ST

OR

Y10

37 C

EDAR

APAR

TMEN

T2

STO

RY

1033

/103

5 C

ED

AR

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

31 C

EDAR

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

29 C

EDAR

RESTAURANT1 STORY

1610 SAN PABLO AVE.

HO

TEL

2 ST

OR

Y16

20 S

AN P

ABL

O A

VE.

WINE MERCHANT1 STORY

1605 SAN PABLO AVE.

ACME BREAD1 STORY

1601 SAN PABLO AVE.

PET STORE2 STORY

1531 SAN PABLO AVE.

BIRD STORE1 STORY

1523 SAN PABLO

COMPUTER REPAIR1 STORY

1521 SAN PABLO AVE.

RETAIL1 STORY

1511 SAN PABLO AVE.

AUTO REPAIR1 STORY

1519 SAN PABLO AVE.

AUTO REPAIR1 STORY

1513 SAN PABLO AVE.

RETAIL1 STORY

1507 SAN PABLO AVE.

AUTO BODY SHOP1 STORY

1505 SAN PABLO AVE.

BOUTIQUE1 STORY

1501 SAN PABLO AVE.

AUTO REPAIR1 STORY

1499 SAN PABLO AVE.

AUTO REPAIR1 STORY

1485 SAN PABLO AVE.

RETAIL1 STORY

SAN PABLO AVE.

RETAIL1 STORY1475-1479

SAN PABLO AVE.

CHURCH1 STORY

1469 SAN PABLO AVE.

RETAIL1 STORY

1443-1445 SAN PABLO

DWELLING2 STORY

JONES ST.

DWELLING

1460 KAINS

APARTMENT2 STORY

1456 KAINS

APARTMENT2 STORY

1452 KAINS

DWELLING1 STORY

1450 KAINS

DWELLING1 STORY

1444 KAINS

Dwelling1 Story

1120 Jones St.

DWELLING1 STORY

1506 KAINS

DWELLING2 STORY

1510 KAINS

DWELLING/2 STORY1512 KAINS

DWELLING1 STORY

1514 KAINS

DWELLING

1109 HOPKINS

APARTMENT3 STORY

1608 KAINS

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

32 C

EDA

R S

T.

DWELLING1 STORY

1601 10TH ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1603 10TH ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1605 10TH ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1615 10TH ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1606 10TH ST.

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

20 C

EDAR

DW

ELLI

NG

2 ST

OR

Y10

16 C

EDA

R S

T.

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

14 C

EDA

R S

T.

DW

ELLI

NG

3 ST

OR

Y10

10 C

EDAR

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

08 C

EDAR

1 ST

OR

Y10

04 C

EDAR

1 ST

OR

Y10

05 C

EDAR

DW

ELLI

NG

2 ST

OR

Y10

09 C

EDAR

DW

ELLI

NG

2 ST

OR

Y10

13 C

EDAR

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

17 C

EDA

R S

T.

DW

ELLI

NG

2 ST

OR

Y10

21 C

EDAR

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

25 C

EDA

R S

T.

DWELLING1 STORY

1520 10TH ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1518 10TH ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1516 10TH

APARTMENT1 STORY

APARTMENT1 STORY

APARTMENT1 STORY

APARTMENT1 STORY

APAR

TMEN

T2

STO

RY

1504

10T

H S

T.

DW

ELLI

NG

3 ST

OR

Y15

04 1

0TH

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

20 J

ON

ES

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

16 J

ON

ES

DW

ELLI

NG

2 ST

OR

Y10

12 J

ON

ES

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

08 J

ON

ES

ST.

1 ST

OR

Y10

04 J

ON

ES

1531 9TH ST.

1541 9TH ST.

1551 9TH ST.

1481 9TH ST.

1471 9TH ST.

1 ST

OR

Y10

03 J

ON

ES

ST.

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

07 J

ON

ES

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y10

11JO

NES

DW

ELLI

NG

2 ST

OR

Y10

15 J

ON

ES

DW

ELLI

NG

1 ST

OR

Y14

80 1

0TH

ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1476 10TH

DWELLING2 STORY

1472 10TH ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1468 10TH

DWELLING1 STORY

1464 10TH

DWELLING1 STORY

1460 10TH ST.DWELLING1 STORY

1463 10TH ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1467 10TH ST.

DWELLING2 STORY

1471 10TH ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1475 10TH ST.

DWELLING1 STORY

1479 10TH

DWELLING1 STORY

1483 10TH

DWELLING1 STORY

1487 10THRETAIL/APARTMENT

2 STORY1464 SAN PABLO

DWELLING2 STORY

1462 SAN PABLO

DWELLING1 STORY

1460 SAN PABLO

DWELLING1 STORY

1456 SAN PABLOAVE.

MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO2 STORY

1450 SAN PABLO AVE.

FURNITURE STORE1 STORY

1450 SAN PABLO AVE.

GAS

STA

TIO

N15

80S

AN P

ABLO

Figure 2Project Site Map



N



6

Description of Project

The project would demolish the existing building on the site to construct a mixed-use

building with the following two main components:

The largest portion of the building would be approximately 175,000 square feet

and have three to four floors of residential above a two-floor concrete podium (one

floor at ground level and one floor below ground). The podium would have

approximately 11,000 square feet of ground floor retail and/or restaurant space,

and 148 residential parking spaces (143 for apartments and five for townhomes)

and 25 commercial parking spaces. Above the podium would be 159 dwelling

units

The smaller, westernmost portion of the building would be made up of 11 three-

story townhomes of approximately 16,500 square feet, with six units having

internal parking spaces.

In total, the project would have a surface footprint of approximately 74,429 square feet

with the following breakdown:

Mixed-use portion: 49,296 square feet with 100 percent coverage. The building

would be 62 feet at the roofline.

Townhomes: 25,133 square feet with 70 percent coverage. The building would be

32 feet tall at the roofline.

Table 1 summarizes the proposed project, and Figures 3 through 9 depict the project site

and the project’s proposed building plans.

In general, the project consists of two main portions as described below, herein referred

to as the “mixed-use portion” and “townhomes”:

Mixed-use portion – A two-story concrete podium makes up the ground level and

underground level of the mixed-use portion. The ground level includes

approximately 11,000 square feet of retail space primarily fronting onto San Pablo

Street, but also wrapping around the corner to provide retail frontage along Jones

Street. Along Jones Street would also be entrances to the main lobby, a secure bike

parking area, service entrances, and the entry to the residential car parking

garage. The main lobby would have access to internal stairs and two elevators; a

residential entry and lobby located on the south side of the building would have

access to internal stairs and one elevator. The remainder of the ground floor of

this portion would consist of parking for residential and commercial uses. The

underground level of the podium would be for the remainder of the residential

parking. Access to the commercial parking area would be on San Pablo Avenue.

This portion of the building lies in the C-W zoning area, with the exception of 28



7

TABLE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY

Description Amount

Lot Area

Mixed-use 49,296 sf (1.13 acres)

Townhomes 25,133 sf (0.58 acres)

Total 74,429 sf (1.71 acres)

Lot Coverage

Mixed-use 49,296 sf (100% lot cover)

Townhomes 17,570 sf (70% lot cover)

Total 66,866 sf (90% lot cover)

Floor Area Ratio

Mixed-use 3.55

Townhomes 0.9

Building Height

Mixed-use 62 ft

Townhomes 32 ft

Number of Stories

Mixed-use 5 stories

Townhomes 3 stories

Number of Dwelling Units

Mixed-use 48 studios; 47 1-bedrooms;

64 2-bedrooms = 159 total

Townhomes 11 townhomes

Total Open Space

Mixed-use 21,289 sf (podium courtyards, roof decks, and balconies)

Townhomes 4,403 sf (balconies and yards)

Number of Parking Spaces

Mixed-use Commercial 25 spaces (2 per 1,000 sf retail; 1 per 300 sf restaurant)

Mixed-use Residential 143 spaces (0.9 per unit)

Townhomes 11 spaces (1 per unit)

Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces

Commercial 6 spaces (1 per 2,000 sf of non-residential space)



8

TABLE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY

Description Amount

Total Residential 184 spaces (1.08 per unit)

Floor Area Breakdown

Mixed-use

Amenities 4,488 sf

Bicycle storage and repair 1,423 sf

Circulation 20,577 sf

Commercial 10,904 sf

Lobby 1,750 sf

Residential 130,622 sf

Service 5,531 sf

Townhomes

Amenities 4,488 sf

Parking 1,200 sf

Residential 16,495 sf

Service 3,301 sf

Notes: sf = square feet; ft = feet

Source: 1500 San Pablo Avenue Plan Set, Pyatok, December 2015

Figure 3Perspectives



SAN PABLO AVE. - SOUTHEAST CORNER

PROPOSEDEXISTING

SAN PABLO AVE. SOUTHEAST CORNER RETAIL

CORNER - SAN PABLO AVE. & CEDAR ST

Level 217' - 0"

Level 327' - 0"

Level 437' - 0"

Level 547' - 0"

Top Plate56' - 0"

T/O Parapet (MaxHeight)62' - 0"

Level 12' - 8"

1A4.01

6'-0

"9'

-0"

10'-

0"10

'-0"

10'-

0"14

'-4"

2'-8

"

59'-

4"

6'-0

"

13.5" ROOF STRUCTURE +16.5" ROOF CRICKET +42" OSHA RAIL

ELEVATOR OVER-RUNSTCLS

BFC

AW

ASABD PMDMA MA

MT MR

MS

STC STC

STC

STC

BFCNOTE: LEVEL ELEVATIONS BASED OFF OFAVERAGE GRADE IN C-W ZONE

AVERAGE GRADE IN C-W ZONE:0' - 0" (35'-4" ABOVE SEA LEVEL)

MG(DASHED)

0 8 124

MGD

SOLAR DOMESTIC HOTWATER PANELS,TYP.

1A5.01

ELEVATOR OVER-RUN

STAIR TOWERSTAIR TOWER

TH Level 1-3' - 4"

Level 217' - 0"

Level 327' - 0"

Level 437' - 0"

Level 547' - 0"

Top Plate56' - 0"

T/O Parapet (MaxHeight)

62' - 0"

Level 12' - 8"

HEI

GH

TAB

OVE

AVG

.C-W

GR

ADE,

ATBL

DG

BEYO

ND

62'-

0"

59'-

4"

2A4.01

TH Level 26' - 4"

TH Level 316' - 0"

31'-

4"

MAX

BLD

GH

EIG

HT

ATLO

WES

TG

RAD

EIN

C-W

ZON

E

64'-

7"

0 8 124

9'-8

"9'

-8"

12'-

0"

9'-0

"14

'-4"

10'-

0"10

'-0"

10'-

0"9'

-0"

6'-0

"

ZONING BOUNDARY LINES

AVERAGE GRADE IN C-W ZONE:0' - 0" (35'-4" ABOVE SEA LEVEL)

HEI

GH

TAB

OVE

AVG

.C-W

GR

ADE

ON

JON

ES

51'-

0"

LOWEST GRADE IN C-W ZONE:-2' - 7" (32'-9" ABOVE SEA LEVEL)

14'-

4"

STCLS

BFC

AW

ASAS PMDSTC MG

STC

STC

LS

MA

NOTE: LEVEL ELEVATIONS BASED OFF OF AVERAGE GRADE IN C-W ZONE

ELEVATOR OVERRUN

Basement-6' - 4"

AW

2'-8

"

2A5.01

3A5.01

STAIR TOWER

(UPPER LEVEL BEYOND)

1A3.03

3/32" = 1'-0" 2NORTH ELEVATION (JONES ST)

Figure 4East Elevation



TH Level 1-3' - 4"

Level 217' - 0"

Level 327' - 0"

Level 437' - 0"

Level 547' - 0"

Top Plate56' - 0"

T/O Parapet (MaxHeight)62' - 0"

Level 12' - 8"

6' -

0"

2A4.01

TH Level 26' - 4"

TH Level 316' - 0"

6'-0

"9'

-0"

10'-

0"10

'-0"

10'-

0"14

'-4"

9'-0

"

10'-

8"9'

-8"

9'-8

"

6' HIGH FENCE

6' HIGH FENCE

NEIGHBORING BLDGSIN FRONT (SHOWN

TRANSLUCENT)

GAS STATION OUTLINE

59'-

4"

LOW GRADE IN C-W ZONE:- 2' - 7" (32'-9" ABOVE SEA LEVEL)

AVG. GRADE IN C-W ZONE:0' - 0" (37'-4" ABOVE SEA LEVEL)

MAX

BLD

GH

EIG

HT

ATLO

WES

TG

RAD

EIN

C-W

ZON

E

64'-

7"

HEI

GH

TAB

OVE

AVG

C-W

GR

ADE

62'-

0"

ELEVATOR OVERRUN

13.5" ROOF STRCT +16.5" ROOF CRICKET +42" OSHA RAIL

ZONING BOUNDARY

12'-

0"

LS

LSMS

BFC

AW

AW STC MR MA

MTMR

MG

LS

STC

STCSTC

MR

NOTE: LEVEL ELEVATIONS BASED OFF OF AVERAGE GRADE IN C-W ZONE

2'-8

"

0 8 124 Basement-6' - 4"

STC

1A3.03

MR

STAIR TOWER

TH Level 1-3' - 4"

TH Level 26' - 4"

TH Level 316' - 0"

TH Level 1-3' - 4"

1A4.01

TH Level 26' - 4"

TH Level 316' - 0"

TOW

NH

OU

SEH

EIG

HT

32'-

0"M

A X

0 8 124

12'-

0"9'

-8"

9'-8

"

STCLS MR AWSTCLS STCPMD MGD

FOR ROOF DECKS

2-STORY PORTION

FOR ROOF DECKS

2-STORY PORTION

4A5.01

4A5.01

3/32" = 1'-0" 2SOUTH ELEVATION

Figure 5West Elevation



TRUENORTH

PROJECTNORTH

10TH

ST.

(60'

WID

E)JONES ST. (60' WIDE)

SAN

PABL

O AV

E. (1

00' W

IDE)

CEDAR ST. (60' WIDE)

30' -

0"

30' - 0"

30' -

0"

50' - 0"

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

C-W

S14°

30' 0

0 E28

0.17'

S 75° 29' 54" W 266.69'

N 75° 29' 37" E 126.00'

S 14

° 33'

55" E

277.5

4'

N 14° 30' 00" W 2.62'

S 75° 29' 45" W 141.00'

COMMERCIALGARAGEENTRY

RESIDENTIALGARAGEENTRY

SETBACK20' - 0"

10' -

2"

10' -

0 1

/2"

O.H

.3'

- 0"

SETB

ACK

10' -

0"

SETB

ACK

4' -

0"

GAS STATION1580 SAN PABLO

DWELLING2-STORY

1041 CEDAR

DWELLING2-STORY

1037 CEDAR

APARTMENT2-STORY1033/1035

CEDAR

DWELLING1-STORY

1031 CEDAR

DWELLING1-STORY

1029 CEDAR

4-STORYAPARTMENT

BUILDING

5-STORYAPARTMENT

BUILDING

5-STORY APARTMENTBUILDING

3-ST

ORY

TOW

NHOU

SES

5-STORYAPARTMENT

BUILDING

PODIUMCOURTYARD

PODIUMCOURTYARD

RESIDENT AMENITYBUILDING

O.H.1' - 7"

RIGHT-OF-WAYCENTERLINE, TYP.

ACCESSORYSTRUCTURE

1-STORY

ACCESSORYSTRUCTURE

1-STORY

ACCESSORYSTRUCTURE

1-STORY

FH

FH

FH

FH

R 100' - 0"

R 100' - 0"

40' LOADING

79' - 0" 50' - 0"

60' -

0"

Figure 6Site Plan



A3.021

A3.012

1A4.01

1A4.01

2A4.01

2A4.01

SERVICE

SERVICE

SERVICE

SERVICE

LOBBY

LOBBY

STAIR

ELEV.

RESIDENTIAL PARKING(BASEMENT LEVEL)

29.00' FF

29.00' FF

29.00' FF

DRIVERAMP UP

29.00' FF

PED. RAMP

PED.RAMP

TRUENORTH

PROJECTNORTH

10TH

ST.

JONES ST.

SAN

PAB

LO A

VE.

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

0 8 164

PROP

ERTY

LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROP

ERTY

LINE

SETBACK

20' - 0" FRONT

78' -

0" T

YP.

CU

RB

CU

T

18' -

0" T

YP.

PEDESTRIAN EXIT &WALKWAY


31.70' FF

TH B

TH A

TH B

TH B

TH A

TH A

TH B

TH B

TH A

TH A

TH A

31.70' FF

31.80' FF

31.80' FF

32.10' FF

32.10' FF

32.30' FF

32.30' FF

32.50' FF

32.50' FF

32.90' FF

29.00' FF

TH SPACE

TH SPACE

TH SPACE

TH SPACE

TH SPACE

PRIVATE PATIO,TYP.

TH SPACE

TH SPACE

TH SPACE

TH SPACE

TH SPACE

TH SPACE

PATIO, TYP.

BALCONY ABOVE,TYP.

10' -

0"

6' H. FENCE, TYP.12' - 0" 12' - 0"

SETB

ACK

10' -

0" R

EQ'D

11' -

7"

264'

- 7"

4' -

0"

20' - 0"

20' - 0" 25' - 2" 153' - 10"

143 SPACES (C-W) +5 TH SPACES (R-1A)

1A3.03

1A3.03

MOTORCYLCES

RENEWAL DATE

L T

IC

E

NS E D A R C H

I

TE

CPETER WALLER

S A

TA

T

EO F C A L I F

O

RN

I

C-23551

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:

TITLE:

JOB NUMBER:

- PRELIMINARY - Not for Construction -

REVISION SCHEDULENO. ISSUE DATE

510-465-7010

ZONI

NG D

ISTR

ICT:

C-W

& R

1-A

415-450-6797

04/30/2017

DRC ANDZAB SUBMITTAL REV.

06/24/15

DRC ANDZAB SUBMITTAL REV. DRAFT

10/22/15

DRC SUBMITTAL REV. 12/02/15

1/16" = 1'-0"

12/1/2015 2:32:59 PM

1407KM/KY

PW12/02/2015

BASEMENT/ TH LEVEL 1

A1.00

1500

SAN

PABL

OA V

E.BE

RKEL

EY, C

A 94

702

San Francisco, CA 94107

4TerraInvestments.com95 Federal Street, Suite D

1/16" = 1'-0" 1Basement / TH Ground Level

Figure 7Ground Floor - Townhomes / Basement - Mixed-Use Building



A3.021

A3.012

A3.011

TRUENORTH

PROJECTNORTH

10TH

ST.

JONES ST.

SAN

PAB

LO A

VE.

1A4.01

1A4.01

2A4.01

2A4.01

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

COMMERCIAL(+/- 7,700 SF)

E

E E

RESIDENTIAL PARKING(LEVEL 1)

COMMERCIALPARKING

25 TOTAL SPACES

143 SPACES (C-W) +5 TH SPACES (R-1A)

TH B

TH A

TH B

TH B

TH A

TH A

TH B

TH B

TH A

TH A

TH A

BIKES =184 TOTAL

RECYCLE/TRASH(COMM.)

(SER

VIC

E C

OR

RID

OR

)LO

BBY

RECYCLE/TRASH

(RESID.)

BIKERACK

0 8 164

PROP

ERTY

LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROP

ERTY

LINE

10' -

0"

11' -

0"

BIKE RACK

BALCONY,TYP.

COMMERCIAL(+/- 3,200 SF)

EXIT

CT.

9' -

4"

CU

RB

CU

T

20'-

0" 2'-0

"COMMERCIALGARAGEENTRY

6' HIGH FENCE6' HIGH FENCE

SIDEWALK13' - 0"

CURB CUT

20' - 0"

BIKEREPAIR

GATE

RESIDENTIALGARAGE ENTRY

1'-6

"

TURN-AROUND

BIKE RACK

(LEVEL 1.0)

(LEVEL 1.0)

RESIDENTIAL ENTRY

RESIDENTIALENTRY

37.50' FF

37.83' FF

37.75' FF

37.75' FF

38.00' FF

38.00'FF

38.00' FF

38.00' FF

DRIVERAMP DN.

RAMPDN.

38.00' FF

38.00' FF

37.75' FF

37.75' FF

RECYCLE/TRASH

SERVICE

OPEN

OPEN


FIRE DEPT.ACCESS STAIR

20' - 0" 65' - 0" 3' - 0"

4'-0

"

20' - 0"

76'-

10"

27'-

4"15

9'-1

"14

'-3"

LEASING/ MAINLOBBY

SERVICE

6' - 0"

6'-0

"

PROJECTION2' - 0" ARCH'L

SETBACK

20' - 0"

30' - 0" 19' - 0" 22' - 0" 19' - 0" 28' - 0" 19' - 0"

1A3.03

1A3.03

49' - 4"

31' - 8"

35' - 0"

65' - 11"

25' - 2" 83' - 10" 32' - 9" 51' - 4" 53' - 6"

11'-

7"26

4'-7

"

RENEWAL DATE

L T

IC

E

NS E D A R C H

I

TE

CPETER WALLER

S A

TA

T

EO F C A L I F

O

RN

I

C-23551

SHEET:


TITLE:

JOB NUMBER:



510-465-7010

ZONI

NG D

ISTR

ICT:

C-W

& R

1-A

415-450-6797

04/30/2017


06/24/15


10/22/15


1/16" = 1'-0"

12/1/2015 2:33:04 PM

1407KM/KY

PW12/02/2015

LEVEL 1

A1.01

1500

SAN

PABL

OA V

E.BE

RKEL

EY, C

A 94

702



1/16" = 1'-0" 1Level 1

Figure 8Ground Floor - Mixed-Use Building



A3.021

A3.012

A3.011

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-1A

TRUENORTH

PROJECTNORTH

10TH

ST.

JONES ST.

SAN

PAB

LO A

VE.

1A4.01

1A4.01

2A4.01

2A4.01

2C

2A

2C 2D

2E2B

2A

2A 2A

2A

1B

2A

2A

1A

2D 2A

1B

1B

S

S

S

1A

1A

1A

2A

1A

1A

2D

1A

1A

1B

S

S

1B1B

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR

CO

RRID

OR

0 8 164

PROP

ERTY

LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROP

ERTY

LINE

BRID

GE

TYPICALEXTERIORBALCONIES -6'D X 10'W

WINDSCREEN

ST

79' - 0" 188' - 0"

60'-

0"22

0'-2

"

277'

-6"

79' - 0" 50' - 0" 137' - 8"

2A

2A

1A

1A

1A

S

ST

1A3.03

1A3.03

RENEWAL DATE

L T

IC

E

NS E D A R C H

I

TE

CPETER WALLER

S A

TA

T

EO F C A L I F

O

RN

I

C-23551

SHEET:


TITLE:

JOB NUMBER:



510-465-7010

ZONI

NG D

ISTR

ICT:

C-W

& R

1-A

415-450-6797

04/30/2017


06/24/15


10/22/15


1/16" = 1'-0"

12/1/2015 2:33:23 PM

1407KM/KY

PW12/02/2015

LEVEL 4

A1.04

1500

SAN

PABL

OA V

E.BE

RKEL

EY, C

A 94

702



1/16" = 1'-0" 1Level 4

Figure 9Typical Floorplate - Mixed-Use Building





16

residential parking spaces (5 for the townhomes) in the basement level and 25

residential spaces in the ground floor level, as well as the podium courtyard

directly above this area.

Above the ground floor podium level of the mixed-use portion would be three to

four levels of wood frame construction, consisting of 159 residential units,

including: studios, large studios, and one-bedroom and two-bedroom units.

Building amenities would include a gym, three roof decks, and two common

courtyards with lounges and outdoor kitchen areas with barbeques.

Townhomes – The townhomes make up the western portion of the site and would

consist of a single row of 11 units, extending the full length of the site from Jones

Street to the project boundary in the south. This portion of the building would

have a 20-foot setback from the western property line and the units would face

10th

Street. Six of the units would have their own parking spaces on the ground

floor (another five spaces for townhome residents would be in the residential

parking lot in the podium of the mixed-use portion).

Vehicular Access and Parking

The podium levels of the mixed-use portion of the building (ground floor and basement)

would provide 143 parking spaces, including four Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

spaces for the residents of the apartment building, plus five spaces for townhome

residents, and would be accessible from Jones Street. Six townhome units would have

parking in individual garages within their units, accessible from 10th

Street. Overall, the

project would provide 154 on-site residential parking spaces. The residential parking

spaces for the mixed-use portion would be provided at a ratio of 0.9 space per residential

unit and for the townhomes at a ratio of 1 space per unit.

The podium levels would also provide 25 parking spaces for commercial uses, including

two ADA spaces. These commercial parking spaces would be accessed from San Pablo

Avenue.

The project proposes to eliminate existing curb cuts (on Jones Street and San Pablo

Avenue) and construct new curb cuts (on Jones Street for garage access, and on the east

side of 10th

Street to accommodate shared driveways to some of the townhomes), which

would affect site access and on-street parking. Overall, the project would reduce on-street

parking in the vicinity by four spaces and add one on-street loading space. The loading

area would be located along Jones Street near the service entry.



17

Bicycle Access and Parking

The proposed project is located near several streets that provide designated bicycle

facilities, including bike lanes on Delaware Street and Gilman Street, bicycle boulevards on

Virginia Street and 9th Street, as well as the off-street Ohlone Greenway.

The project would provide a bike room with 184 long-term bicycle parking spaces and a

bike maintenance and repair station for apartment residents. The bike room would be

accessed from the Jones Street residential entry. The project would also provide six bike

racks along the sidewalk (three on Jones Street and three on San Pablo Avenue) to provide

12 bicycle parking spaces for short-term use. The bike racks would be located between

tree wells, and would therefore not conflict with the pedestrian path of travel.

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian access to the mid-rise apartment residential units would be provided through

the two proposed residential lobbies located on the Jones Street and San Pablo Avenue

frontages. Pedestrian access to the townhouses would be provided through individual

ground floor unit entrances on 10th

Street. The ground-floor commercial/retail uses would

have independent pedestrian entrances located on the building’s San Pablo Avenue

frontage.

Emergency Access

Emergency vehicle access to the project site would be provided from San Pablo Avenue,

10th

Street, and Jones Street. The project does not propose modifications to the roadway

network or major modifications (circulation patterns or design features) to streets

adjacent to the project site (Cedar Street, 10th

Street, San Pablo Avenue, or Jones

Street).Secure bicycle parking for residents is included in a dedicated bicycle parking area

of approximately 1,400 square feet on the ground floor of the mixed-use portion,

adjacent to the main lobby. It includes secure spaces for 184 bicycles and a bike repair

area. For public use, two racks for two bikes each would be located on the sidewalk along

Jones Street and one rack for two bikes would be located on the sidewalk on San Pablo

Avenue.

Landscape and Design

Along Jones Street and 10th

Street, there are several existing trees and large shrubs within

the property boundary and adjacent to the public sidewalk. These would be removed and

replaced with trees appropriate to the character and existing landscape palette in the

neighborhood. The existing street trees along San Pablo, adjacent to the site, would

remain and receive enlarged tree wells. The mixed-use portion of the building would



18

include landscaping on the podium-level courtyards and on the rooftop decks. A mixture

of raised planters, vegetated roof areas, decking pavers, outdoor kitchens with barbeques,

and windscreens would be provided on the podium courtyard and rooftop areas. The

townhomes would have trees and vegetation at the ground level in front of the units as

well as concrete flow-through planters for stormwater, permeable pavers for entry paths,

and permeable driveway medians.

The project is contemporary in design, utilizing a variety of materials including, but not

limited to: cement plaster; composite wood accent siding; standing seam metal accent

siding; concrete walls and columns; dark anodized aluminum windows and bifold doors;

dark anodized aluminum and glass storefront glazing at the exterior street facades; and

painted metal doors and garage doors.

Population and Employment

Based on California Department of Finance 2010 data, which identifies an average 2.17

persons per Berkeley household,1

the project generates up to 369 new residents. The

nearly 11,000 square feet of commercial space would generate approximately 37

employees.2

Utilities

On-site utilities include gas, energy, domestic water, wastewater, and storm drainage. All

on-site utilities would be designed in accordance with applicable codes and current

engineering practices. The project is not anticipated to require any significant utility or

infrastructure improvements but will pay applicable fees in accordance with the fee

schedule at the time of building permit issuance.

Project Construction

Schedule

Project construction would begin with the demolition of the existing building on the site.

Demolition would involve abating any hazards present within the building, demolishing

and removing the existing structure, and removing the existing foundation slabs and

underground utilities. The project would be constructed in the following general phases:

1

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2010 Census Summary File 1,

Table DP-1. Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/

2

Using a standard generation rate of 300 square feet per employee, as per the City of Berkeley’s

Downtown Specific Plan EIR, 2009, pp4–207

http://factfinder.census.gov/



19

Demolition of existing buildings and staging: approximately 2 months.

Grading and excavation: approximately 2 months.

Construction of both buildings: approximately 16 months.

Commissioning, testing, and final inspection: approximately 2 months.

Project construction is estimated to take approximately 22 months total and is estimated

to begin in March 2017, with building occupancy planned for spring 2019.

Equipment and Staging

Typical equipment that would be used during construction would include, but is not

limited to, concrete/industrial saws, bulldozers, backhoes, graders, loaders, generators,

excavator, dump trucks, tower crane and air compressors. The project does not involve

any pile driving. All construction equipment, employee vehicles, and import material

would be staged on site or nearby.

Spoils, Debris, and Materials

Construction would require demolition and removal of the existing building and paved

features at the project site. All demolition material would be disposed of off-site.

Excavation will be required for the foundation, footings and utility services. For the

townhomes, an estimated 500 cubic yards of soil will be excavated. For the mixed-use

portion of the building, which includes an underground podium level, an estimated 7,900

cubic yards will be removed. Per the geotechnical report, existing soil will be over-

excavated to provide 24" of non-expansive material below the floor finish, resulting in

2,300 cubic yards of excavated material for removal. In total, 10,700 cubic yards of

material will be excavated.



20

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CRITERIA

Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300 to

15333), includes a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a

significant effect on the environment and as a result, are exempt from review under

CEQA.

Class 32 (Infill Development)

Among the classes of projects that are exempt from CEQA review are those projects that

are specifically identified as urban infill development. CEQA Guidelines Section 15332

defines infill development (or Class 32 exemptions) as being applicable to projects

characterized as infill development meeting the following conditions:

(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all

applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and

regulations.

(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more

than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened

species.

(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to

traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The analysis presented in the following section provides substantial evidence that the

project properly qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a

Class 32 urban infill development, and would not have a significant effect on the

environment.

Exceptions

Even if a project is ordinarily exempt under any of the potential categorical exemptions,

CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 provides specific instances where exceptions to

otherwise applicable exemptions apply. Exceptions to a categorical exemption apply in

the following circumstances, effectively nullifying a CEQA categorical exemption:



21

(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the

project is to be located. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on

the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant.

Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the

project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical

concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to

law by federal, state, or local agencies.

(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the

cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over

time is significant.

(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where

there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on

the environment due to unusual circumstances.

(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which

may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees,

historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway

officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to

improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative

declaration or certified EIR.

(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project

located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section

65962.5 of the Government Code.

(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project

which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical

resource.

The following analysis also presents substantial evidence that there are no exceptions that

apply to the project or its site, that the project would not have a significant effect on the

environment, and that the Class 32 exemption remains applicable.

City of Berkeley – Standard Conditions of Approval for All Projects

The City of Berkeley’s Zoning Officer approves Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) for

all projects and amends these conditions as needed. The SCAs incorporate development

policies and standards from various adopted plans, policies, and ordinances (such as the

Berkeley Municipal Code, California Building Code, and Uniform Fire Code, among others),

which have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects.



22

These SCAs are incorporated into projects as conditions of approval, regardless of the

determination of a project’s environmental impacts. As applicable, the SCAs are adopted

as requirements of an individual project when it is approved by the City, and are designed

to, and will, avoid or substantially reduce a project’s environmental effects.

In reviewing project applications, the City determines which SCAs apply based upon the

zoning district, community plan, and the type of permits/approvals required for the

project. Depending on the specific characteristics of the project type and/or project site,

the City will determine which SCAs apply to a specific project. Because these SCAs are

mandatory City requirements imposed on a city-wide basis, environmental analyses

assume that these SCAs will be imposed and implemented by the project, and are not

imposed as mitigation measures under CEQA.



23

CEQA EXEMPTION CHECKLIST

The following analysis provides substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the

project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a Class 32

urban infill development, and would not have a significant effect on the environment.

Criterion Section 15332(a): General Plan and Zoning Consistency

Yes No

The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all

applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and

regulations.

General Plan

The project site is composed of a single lot with two separate zoning designations (see

Figure 2) and two separate General Plan land use designations. The eastern portion of the

site, which is adjacent to San Pablo Avenue, is designated as West Berkeley Avenue

Commercial. The West Berkeley Avenue Commercial area is typically characterized by

pedestrian-oriented commercial development and multi-family residential buildings and is

well served by public transit. Appropriate uses for Avenue Commercial include

commercial, residential, office, community service and institutional, with a maximum

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of three (3).

The mixed-use portion of the building would be within this part of the site and would

consist of a five-story mixed-use development, with ground floor commercial space, three-

to-four floors of residential development and underground parking, consistent with the

intent of the land use designation. This portion would have a FAR of 3.55,3

which is above

the FAR of 3.0 permitted by the General Plan regulations but allowable with a density

bonus.

The western portion of site is designated as Low Medium Density Residential, or LMDR.

These areas generally consist of single family homes and small multi-family buildings of

two or three units. Appropriate uses include residential, community services, schools,

home occupations, recreational uses, and open space and institutional facilities. The plan

outlines that building intensity will range from one to ten dwelling units per net acre, not

including secondary units, and the population density will generally not exceed 22

persons per acre.

3

175,068 total gross sf / 49,296 sf lot area = 3.55



24

The western part of the building would be within this area and consist of a row of 11

three-story townhomes, each with two or three bedrooms. This is consistent with the

intent of the land use designation and the character of the residential component of the

neighborhood. The townhomes would have a density of just over 24 dwelling units per net

acre. The project has requested a density bonus waiver to permit the additional units.

Zoning

The project site has two applicable zoning districts. The eastern portion of the site is

adjacent to San Pablo Avenue and is zoned West Berkeley District Commercial (C-W). The

western portion of the site is zoned Limited Two-Family Residential District (R1-A).

The intent behind the C-W zoning designation is to increase the opportunities for housing

and mixed-use developments in commercial areas to support local retailing, pedestrian-

oriented uses and the use of transit lines in a manner that is compatible with adjacent

commercial, residential, and industrial areas.

The intent of the R-1A zoning is to recognize and protect the existing pattern of low

medium density residential areas and to protect properties from unreasonable obstruction

of light and air from adjacent properties. The R-1A zone allows for a wide range of uses

supportive to its stated intent, including single-family and multi-family dwellings.

The project would demolish the existing building on the site to construct approximately

11,000 square feet of ground-level, pedestrian-oriented, active storefront retail use on San

Pablo Avenue, wrapping around the corner to provide retail frontage along Jones Street as

well. Above this would be three to four floors of residential units. Along the western

portion of the site and fronting on 10th

Street would be a row of 11 three-story

townhomes.

The project is designed to comply with all design standards and regulations of the

Planning Code, inclusive of requested density bonus waivers, as described below:

The mixed-use portion has a total of 175,296 gross square feet over an area of

49,296 square feet, giving it a floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.55. The density bonus would

allow for a FAR of 4, which is above the FAR of 3 allowed by code. There are a total of

11 townhomes, which is two more than the standard allowed by code, but allowable

under the density bonus waiver.

The standard allowable height for the mixed-use portion of the building is 50 feet. The

density bonus allows for an additional story. The mixed-use portion is proposed to

have a roofline of 60 feet and with an additional 2 feet for the parapet. This is

requested to allow for OSHA-required railing for maintenance of rooftop mechanical

equipment and the roof deck. The standard allowable height for the townhomes is 28



25

feet and up to 35 feet with an Administrative Use Permit. The building height for the

townhomes is proposed for 32 feet and the project is requesting an Administrative

Use Permit for the additional height.

The mixed-use portion proposes up to five above-ground stories, which is one more

story than the code maximum. The density bonus would allow for an additional story.

The townhomes are three stories in height, consistent with local requirements.

The mixed-use portion does not have any setbacks and none are required. The

townhomes are in line with the following setback requirements: 4 feet on the south

property line side, 10 feet on the Jones Street side, and 20 feet from the front

(fronting on 10th

Street).

Standard code requirement for parking for the mixed-use portion is: one space per

residential unit, two spaces for every 1,000 square feet of retail, and one space for

every 300 square feet of restaurant space. The mixed-use portion proposes the

following parking allocation: 143 total parking spaces for residential use (0.9 parking

space per residential unit)4

and 25 parking spaces for commercial uses (one space per

436 square feet of commercial space)5

. A density bonus waiver is requested for the

mixed-use portion parking requirement, both to allow the provision of less than the

required amount of parking per the Municipal Code and to allow for the provision of

spaces in the portion of the lot zoned R-1A for uses on the portion of the lot zoned

CW-1. The townhomes are provided with one parking space per unit (11 total), in

compliance with local regulations. A total of 154 spaces are provided for residential

land uses and 25 parking spaces for commercial uses.

With a minimum of 21,289 square feet of usable open space (including private open

space on each residential floor and open space on the podium and roof-top open

space) meets or exceeds the minimum usable open space requirement of 6,360

square feet.

Given these facts, the project meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(a) as

being consistent with the General Plan and applicable zoning regulations for the site.

4

143 parking spaces proposed / 153 residential units = 0.9 parking space per unit in the mixed-use

building

5

10,903 sf of commercial use / 25 parking spaces proposed = one space per 436 sf of commercial space

in the mixed-use building



26

Criterion Section 15332(b): Project Location, Size, and Context

Yes No

The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more

than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses

The project is located within the incorporated limits of the City of Berkeley on a site of

approximately 1.71 acres in area, and is entirely surrounded by properties developed with

urban land uses and/or paved public streets (see Figure 2). CEQA defines a qualified

urban use as, “…any residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation

passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.”6

Given these facts, the

project adheres to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(b) as a site of no more

than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

Criterion Section 15332(c): Endangered, Rare of Threatened Species

Yes No

The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

As shown at Figure 2, the project site is almost completely covered with existing buildings

and pavement, with the exception of several non-native, small trees and large shrubs on

the perimeter of the site, adjacent to the internal edge of the public sidewalk. The project

site is located in the urbanized area of Berkeley’s flatlands, which is not known to have

any special-status species or ecological communities, and which does not have any areas

designated for conservation or protection.7

Therefore, the existing vegetation on site does

not contribute to ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish,

amphibians, and invertebrates depend on for their conservation or protection, nor does it

contain habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Given these facts, the project

adheres to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(c).

6

California, State of. 2016. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality

Act Statutes and Guidelines, § 21072, pp. 8

7

Berkeley, City of. 2001. Draft General Plan EIR, Chapter K: Natural Resources, pp. 227-228



27

Criterion Section 15332(d): Traffic

Yes No

Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic.

As discussed in detail below, the project would not result in any significant traffic or

transportation-related impacts. The proposed project would generate 21 new AM peak

hour trips and 48 new PM peak hour trips, and would not result in any project-level or

cumulative impacts. Thus, there is no exception to the Class 32 exemption relative to

traffic or transportation criteria.

Intersection Level of Service

The traffic impact analysis prepared for the project complies with the City of Berkeley

Guidelines for Development of Traffic Impact Reports8

and the Caltrans Guide for the

Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Both AM and PM peak hour conditions were

evaluated for the following scenarios:

Existing Conditions: this scenario represents the existing conditions of the

transportation system, corresponding to when the traffic counts were collected

at study intersections in December 2014.

Existing Plus Project Conditions: this scenario adds the net new project trips to

the Existing Condition scenario.

Cumulative without Conditions: this scenario represents the year 2040

conditions without the project.

Cumulative Plus Project Conditions: this scenario represents the year 2040

conditions with the project.

Traffic operations were evaluated at the following six intersections (locations where the

project is most likely to have potential impacts):

1. San Pablo Avenue and University Avenue (signal);

2. San Pablo Avenue and Cedar Street/Hopkins Street (signal);

3. San Pablo Avenue and Jones Street (two-way, stop control);

4. San Pablo Avenue and Gilman Street (signal);

5. 6th Street and University Avenue (signal); and

6. 6th Street and Jones Street (two-way, stop control).

Intersections were analyzed according to the Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM)

methodology, which uses quantitative measures of traffic conditions (turning movement

8

Guidelines for Development of Traffic Impact Reports, City of Berkeley, September 2005.



28

volumes, signal timing information, roadway geometric configurations) to determine

capacity, average delay, and other operational performance measures at an intersection,

of which the most widely used is the Level of Service (LOS). LOS provides a qualitative

description of the performance of an intersection based on average delay per vehicle. See

Appendix A for detailed outputs of the intersection analyses performed.

For signalized intersections, intersection LOS and delay are reported as an average across

all movements and approaches. For unsignalized intersections, intersection LOS and delay

are reported for the both the intersection as an average and the worst stop-controlled

approach. 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.

The following presents the City of Berkeley’s significance thresholds for signalized and

unsignalized intersections, as documented in the City of Berkeley Guidelines for

Development of Traffic Impact Reports:

Signalized Intersections:

If an intersection operating at LOS A, B, C, or D deteriorates to LOS E with an

added average intersection delay of 2 seconds.

If an intersection operating at LOS E continues to operate at LOS E with an added

average intersection delay of 3 seconds.

If an intersection operating at LOS E deteriorates to LOS F with an added average

delay of 3 seconds.

If an intersection operating at LOS F continues to operate at LOS F with an added

average intersection delay of 3 seconds and an increase in the V/C ratio by 0.01.

Unsignalized Intersection:

If a movement operating at LOS F continues to operate at LOS F, the peak hour

signal warrant is met, and a minimum of 10 vehicles are added to the LOS F

movement.

Existing Conditions

Traffic counts, including motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian counts, were collected at

each of the study intersections for the AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and the PM peak

hour (4:00 PM to 6:00 p.m.) on December 18, 2014 (driveway counts at the existing site

were conducted on October 1, 2015). Study intersections were evaluated for the peak one

hour of each peak period, which corresponds to 8:00 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. Based on the

volumes of these peak hours and the roadway configurations, the Level of Service (LOS) at

the study intersections was calculated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

methodologies.



29

Table 2 presents the existing LOS for all six study intersections. The four signalized

intersections currently operate at LOS D or C in the AM and PM peak hours, while the stop-

controlled approaches of the unsignalized intersections operate at LOS B or C.

TABLE 2 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE

Intersection Controla

Peak

Hour Delayb

LOSb

San Pablo Ave/University Ave Signal

AM 40.9 D

PM 51.5 D

San Pablo Ave/Cedar St-Hopkins St Signal

AM 25.8 C

PM 40.3 D

San Pablo Ave/Jones St Two-way Stop

AM 0.6 (13.3) A (B)

PM 0.8 (22.2) A (C)

San Pablo Ave/Gilman St Signal

AM 44.7 D

PM 45.9 D

6th St/University Ave Signal

AM 35.6 D

PM 39.9 D

6th St/Jones St Two-way Stop

AM 1.1 (13.5) A (B)

PM 1.4 (20.2) A (C)

a

Signal = signalized intersection; Two-way Stop = unsignalized intersection that is controlled by stop signs on

two approaches.

b

Delay and LOS presented as average intersection for signalized intersections and as average intersection (worst

stop-controlled approach) for two-way stop-controlled intersections.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016.

Project-Generated Traffic

In order to estimate the amount of vehicular traffic the project would add to the local

roadway network, the West Berkeley Trip Generation Tool was updated to reflect the latest

rates in the 9th

Edition of the International Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.

Table 3 presents the proposed land use and its resulting trip generation. The subtotal in

Table 3 reflects both passerby and modal reductions (modal reductions match those

documented in the West Berkeley Trip Generation Tool). Existing driveway counts were

collected during the AM and PM peak hours to determine the number of trips the existing

site generates. These existing trips were subtracted from the subtotal, resulting in net

new trips. These trip reductions (passerby, modal, and existing) are consistent with the

allowed trip generation reductions documented in the City of Berkeley Guidelines for

Development of Traffic Impact Reports. The proposed land use would generate 21 new AM

peak hour trips and 48 new PM peak hour trips.



30

TABLE 3 AUTOMOBILE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

Land Use Unitsa

ITE

Code

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

Mid-rise Apartment 159 DU 223b

9 19 28 21 16 37

Townhouse 11 DU 230c

1 2 3 2 1 3

General Commercial 8.9 KSF 820d

2 2 4 8 9 17

Quality Restaurant 2 KSF 931e

1 0 1 5 2 7

Subtotal 13 23 36 36 28 64

Existing Trips f

11 4 15 6 10 16

Net New Trips

(Adjusted Project – Existing Trips) 2 19 21 30 18 48

a

DU = Dwelling Units, KSF = 1,000 square feet.

b

ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition) land use category 223 (Mid-rise Apartment):

AM Peak Hour: T = 0.30*(X) (31% in, 69% out)

PM Peak Hour: T = 0.39*(X) (58% in, 42% out)

Passerby Reduction: 0%

Modal Reduction: 38% c

ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition) land use category 230 (Townhouse):




Modal Reduction: 38% d ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition) land use category 820 (General Commercial):

Daily: 89.95




Modal Reduction: 18% e

ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition) land use category 932 (Quality Restaurant):




Modal Reduction: 18% f

Existing driveway counts collected on October 1, 2015

Source: Fehr and Peers, 2016, ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th

Edition)

Trip generation by travel mode was also generated, as presented in Table 4. Trips by

mode were calculated based off the mode shares documented in the West Berkeley

Circulation Master Plan.



31

TABLE 4 TRIP GENERATION BY TRAVEL MODE

Mode Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Automobilea

36 64

Transit 11 15

Bike 6 9

Walk 8 13

Other 3 3

Total Trips 64 104

Total Person Trips 77 134

a

Automobile trips represent total project generated trips. Table 3 presents total net new trips in the AM and PM

peak hour (i.e., with trips associated with the existing land uses to be demolished removed).

Source: West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan, Fehr & Peers.

Congestion Management Program Evaluation

The Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires assessment of

impacts to regional roadways for projects that would generate more than 100 net new PM

peak hour automobile trips. As shown in Table 3, the project would generate less than

100 net new PM peak hour automobile trips, and does not require a CMP evaluation.

Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis

The intersection operation results for Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions are

presented in Table 5. With the addition of the project traffic, the LOS for each of the study

intersections would not degrade in either the AM or the PM peak hour. Signalized

intersections would experience an increase in average vehicle delay of no more than

2 seconds. Unsignalized intersections would experience an increase in delay for the stop-

controlled approaches of no more than 1 second.

Since the LOS would not degrade for any of the study intersections and all intersections

operate at LOS D or better, the project would not cause a significant impact under Existing

Plus Project conditions.

Cumulative Conditions

Year 2040 Cumulative traffic volumes were developed from the Alameda County

Transportation Commission’s (ACTC) travel demand model. Vehicle delay and LOS results

were determined for the Cumulative Without Project and Cumulative Plus Project

conditions based on the ACTC forecasts for the six intersections evaluated. The ACTC

Year 2040 model includes planned changes to the roadway network and land use



32

TABLE 5 EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE


Peak

Hour

Existingb

Existing

Plus Projectb

Significant

Impact?

Delay

LOS

V/C Delay

LOS

V/C

San Pablo

Ave/

University Ave

Signal

AM 40.9 D 0.85

41.2 D 0.85

No

PM 51.5 D 0.88

52.0 D 0.88

No

San Pablo

Ave/ Cedar

St-Hopkins St

Signal

AM 25.8 C 0.89

26.2 C 0.90

No

PM 40.3 D 0.94

42.3 D 0.94

No

San Pablo

Ave/ Jones St

Two-way

Stop

AM 0.6

(13.3) A (B)

- 0.7

(12.8) A (B)

- No

PM 0.8

(22.2) A (C)

- 1.1

(21.9) A (C)

- No

San Pablo

Ave/ Gilman

St

Signal

AM 44.7 D 0.95

44.7 D 0.95

No

PM 45.9 D 0.96

46.6 D 0.97

No

6th

St/University

Ave

Signal

AM 35.6 D 0.86

35.6 D 0.86

No

PM 39.9 D 0.92

39.9 D 0.92

No

6th St/Jones

St

Two-way

Stop

AM 1.1

(13.5) A (B)

- 1.3

(13.6) A (B)

- No

PM 1.4

(20.2) A (C)

- 1.5

(20.7) B (C)

- No

a


two approaches.

b


stop-controlled approach) for two-way stop-controlled intersections.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016

development consistent with the West Berkeley Land Use Plan. Table 6 presents the LOS

results for both conditions, and compares them against Berkeley’s significance criteria.

While the project would increase delay at signalized intersections anticipated to operate at

LOS E or LOS F in 2040, it is estimated that the project would not increase average

intersection delay by three or more seconds for any of the signalized intersections in

either the AM or PM peak hours.

For unsignalized intersections to trigger a significant impact, the project must add ten

vehicles to a movement operating at LOS F and meet peak hour signal warrants. In the PM

peak hour, the project is expected to generate ten trips for the eastbound movement at

San Pablo Avenue/Jones Street, which would trigger the 10 vehicle threshold. However,

this intersection would not meet peak hour signal warrants. Therefore, significant effect is



33

TABLE 6 FUTURE AND FUTURE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE


Peak

Hour

Cumulative Without

Projectb

Cumulative Plus

Projectb

Significant

Impact? Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C

San Pablo

Ave/

University Ave

Signal

AM 59.7 E 1.01 60.2 E 1.01 No

PM 100.6 F 1.15 100.9 F 1.15 No

San Pablo

Ave/ Cedar

St-Hopkins St

Signal

AM 51.1 D 1.10 52.3 D 1.11 No

PM 82.4 F 1.21 84.0 F 1.22 No

San Pablo

Ave/ Jones St

Two-way

Stop

AM 1.0

(18.3)

A

(C) -

1.1

(18.3)

A

(C) - No

PM 10.5

(>200) C (F) -

>10.5

(>200)c

≥B

(F)c

- Nod

San Pablo

Ave/ Gilman

St

Signal

AM 106.4 F 1.25 106.2 F 1.25 No

PM 126.2 F 1.30 127.5 F 1.31 No

6th St/

University Ave Signal

AM 57.7 E 1.19 57.7 E 1.19 No

PM 82.9 F 1.32 82.7 F 1.32 No

6th St/ Jones

St

Two-way

Stop

AM 1.5

(15.6)

A

(C) -

1.6

(15.6)

A

(C) - No

PM 3.0

(36.9) C (E) -

3.1

(38.3) C (E) - No

a


two approaches.

b


stop-controlled approach) for two-way stop-controlled intersections. Volume-to Capacity (V/C) ratio is not

expressed for unsignalized intersections.

c

Average intersection delay cannot be expressed as westbound capacity is estimated as zero.

d

It is estimated that the peak hour signal warrant would not be met.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016 (See Appendix B)

not triggered at any of the study intersections in either the 2040 AM or PM peak hours for

the proposed land use.

Transit Travel Time

The project site is served by several local AC Transit bus routes along San Pablo Avenue.

Traffic generated by the project would not result in a noticeable increase in congestion

along this corridor, and the project would have a very minor effect on transit service

within the area. The estimated increase in travel time would be within the variability in

travel time already experienced by each bus on these corridors, and would constitute a

less-than-significant impact.



34

Pedestrian, Bicycle and Vehicle Safety

Existing pedestrian activity adjacent to the proposed residential garage on Jones Street

and townhouse driveways on 10th

Street is minimal, with fewer than ten pedestrians

observed using these sidewalks during the peak hours. As such, there would be sufficient

capacity available to accommodate the expected incremental increase in pedestrian traffic

on sidewalks surrounding the project site. Pedestrian travel would continue to occur

without major impedances or safety problems with the projected traffic volumes on the

adjacent streets. However, there is a potential for conflict between project-generated

vehicular traffic entering and exiting the building’s residential and commercial/retail

garages and pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk on the west side of San Pablo

Avenue and the south side of Jones Street, adjacent to the project site. Recognizing this

issue, the following improvement measure is proposed to minimize any potential (but less

than significant) effects on pedestrian conditions arising from project-generated vehicle

traffic:

Improvement Measure 1: Install appropriate signage and striping at all garage

exit points to alert vehicles exiting the project site to the presence of pedestrians,

and install sight distance improvement measures to provide better visibility

between pedestrians and motorists at the garage exits. Improvements shall be

approved by City of Berkeley Public Works Traffic Engineering.

The project would have a less than significant impact on pedestrian operations and

facilities with this measure.

The project site is located near existing bicycle facilities (e.g., Hopkins Street, 9th Street,

Virginia Street, and Gilman Street) and is within convenient biking distance of downtown.

As shown in Table 4, the project would generate six bicycle trips during the weekday AM

peak hour and nine bicycle trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Project-related bicycle

trips would be spread over multiple routes and project-generated bicycle trips would not

adversely affect overall bicycle circulation in the area or the operations of adjacent bicycle

facilities. Bicycle travel would continue to occur without major impedances or safety

problems with the projected bicycle and vehicular traffic volumes on nearby streets.

Bicycle travel would continue to occur without major impedances or safety problems with

the projected bicycle and vehicular traffic volumes on nearby streets under Year 2040

Cumulative conditions. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on

bicycle operations under both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project

conditions.



35

Conflicts with Transportation Policy

The City of Berkeley’s General Plan Transportation Element, as well as the City’s Complete

Streets Implementation Plan, states a strong preference for encouraging the use of non-

automobile transportation modes, such as transit, bicycling, and walking.

The project would encourage the use of non-automobile transportation modes

by providing residential and commercial uses in a walkable and bikeable urban

environment, with nearby transit service.

The project is consistent with both the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan and Bicycle

Master Plan by not making major modifications to existing pedestrian or bicycle

facilities in the surrounding areas, and would not adversely affect installation of

future facilities.

The project would provide 184 long-term bicycle parking spaces in a secure

room directly off the lobby.

The project would not conflict with adopted City policies, plans, or programs regarding

public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and the impact would be less-than-

significant.

Parking and Transportation Demand Management

While development of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to

traffic conditions under Existing Plus Project conditions or Cumulative Plus Project

conditions, the following improvement measure has been proposed to reduce traffic

generated by the proposed project and minimize any potential parking shortfall.

Improvement Measure 2: The project sponsor will establish a parking and transportation

demand management (PTDM) program for building tenants and employees, in an effort to

expand the mix of travel alternatives available. Specific components of the PTDM program

would be determined in coordination with the City of Berkeley:

Pay car share application fees, membership fees, and monthly dues for all

participating residents;

Offer transit pass subsidies;

Charge separately for residential parking spaces;

Do not include any free parking for commercial tenants or their employees;

Offer residents and employees pre-tax transit benefits via payroll deduction or

other means;

Inform residents and employees of the program and post information

continuously;



36

Submit an annual statement indicating that they have offered the program and

have clearly communicated the program’s availability and number of

participating employees;

Encourage enrollment by all qualifying employees in the Alameda County

Guaranteed Ride Home program and submit an annual statement indicating

number of participating employees;

Install transit kiosks/bulletin boards in lobbies, lounges, break rooms and other

common areas and update regularly;

Hire transportation benefits coordinators who will gather and provide

information regarding transit and other alternative transportation to residents

and commercial tenants and their employees; and

Install real-time garage occupancy and wayfinding sign at garage entry, with

vehicle detection capability and enabled for future connection to the Downtown

Parking Information Guidance system.

Changes in Air Traffic Patterns

The Oakland International Airport is located about 12 miles south of the project site. The

project would increase density and increase building heights at the project site. However,

building heights are not expected to interfere with current flight patterns of Oakland

International Airport or other nearby airports. Therefore, the proposed project would not

result in changes in air traffic patterns. This would be a less-than-significant impact, and

no mitigation measures would be required.

Criterion Section 15332(d): Noise

Yes No

Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise.

General Information on Noise

Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and can

have an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health. Sound is

measured in decibels (dB), which is a logarithmic scale. Decibels describe the purely

physical intensity of sound based on changes in air pressure, but they cannot accurately

describe sound as perceived by the human ear since the human ear is only capable of

hearing sound within a limited frequency range. For this reason, a frequency-dependent

weighting system is used and monitoring results are reported in A-weighted decibels

(dBA). Technical terms used to describe noise are defined in Table 7.



37

TABLE 7 DEFINITION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS

Term Definition

Decibel (dB)

A unit describing the amplitude of sound on a logarithmic scale. Sound

described in decibels is usually referred to as sound or noise “level.” This

unit is not used in this analysis because it includes frequencies that the

human ear cannot detect.

Vibration Decibel (VdB) A unit describing the amplitude of vibration on a logarithmic scale.

Frequency (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and

below atmospheric pressure.

A-Weighted Sound Level

(dBA)

The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter

using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes

the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a

manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates

well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are

A-weighted.

Equivalent Noise Level

(Leq)

The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. For

this CEQA evaluation, Leq refers to a one-hour period unless otherwise

stated.

Community Noise

Equivalent Level (CNEL)

The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after

addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7 to 10 p.m. and after addition

of 10 decibels to sound levels during the night between 10 p.m. and 7

a.m..

Day/Night Noise Level

(Ldn)

The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after

addition of 10 decibels to levels measured during the night between 10

p.m. and 7 a.m..

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or

existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Peak Particle Velocity

(PPV) The maximum instantaneous peak of a vibration signal.

Root Mean Square (RMS)

Velocity The average of the squared amplitude of a vibration signal.

It should be noted that because decibels are based on a logarithmic scale, they cannot be

added or subtracted in the usual arithmetical way. For instance, if one noise source emits

a sound level of 90 dBA, and a second source is placed beside the first and also emits a

sound level of 90 dBA, the combined sound level is 93 dBA, not 180 dBA. When the

difference between two co-located sources of noise is 10 dBA or more, the higher noise

source dominates and the lower noise source makes no perceptible difference in what

people can hear or measure. For example, if the noise level is 95 dBA, and another noise

source is added that produces 80 dBA noise, the noise level will still be 95 dBA.

In an unconfined space, such as outdoors, noise attenuates with distance according to the

inverse square law. Noise levels at a known distance from point sources are reduced by at

least 6 dBA for every doubling of that distance over hard surfaces, such as asphalt, and

7.5 dBA for every doubling of that distance over soft surfaces, such as undeveloped land.



38

Noise levels at a known distance from line sources, such as the noise from high-volume

roadways, decrease at a rate of at least 3 dBA for every doubling of the distance over hard

surfaces and 4.5 dBA over soft surfaces. A greater decrease in noise levels can result from

the presence of intervening structures or buffers.

A typical method for determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is by

comparing it to existing conditions. The following describes the general effects of noise

on people:9

A change of 1 dBA cannot typically be perceived, except in carefully controlled

laboratory experiments;

A 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference;

A minimum of a 5-dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community

response is expected; and

A 10-dBA change is subjectively perceived as approximately a doubling (or halving) in

loudness.

General Information on Vibration

Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium (versus noise which is an

oscillatory motion through air) in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms

of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Several different methods are used to quantify

vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates

rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors to vibration

include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the

elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment. Vibration amplitudes are usually

expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity.

The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. PPV is

appropriate for evaluating potential damage to buildings, but it is not suitable for

evaluating human response to vibration because it takes the human body time to respond

to vibration signals. The response of the human body to vibration is dependent on the

average amplitude of a vibration. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared

amplitude of the signal and is more appropriate for evaluating human response to

vibration. PPV and RMS are normally described in units of inches per second (in/sec), and

RMS is also often described in vibration decibels (VdB).

9

Salter, Charles M., 1998. Acoustics – Architecture, Engineering, the Environment, William Stout

Publishers.



39

Regulatory Framework

State

Section 5.507 of California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11 (also called California

2013 Green Building Standards) Code specifies that buildings containing non-residential

uses (e.g., retail spaces and offices) that are exposed to exterior noise levels at or above

65 dBA Leq or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) shall maintain interior noise level

below 50 dBA Leq in occupied areas during any hour of operation. An acoustical analysis

documenting compliance with this interior sound level is required. Although the 2013

California Building Code does not specify an interior noise standard for residential uses,

the 2010 California Building Code restricted interior noise levels attributable to exterior

noise sources to 45 dBA Ldn or CNEL for dwellings other than detached single-family

dwellings, and this restriction is incorporated in the City of Berkeley Standard Conditions

of Approval (SCAs), described below.

Sections 46000 to 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code codify the California

Noise Control Act (CNCA) of 1973. This act established the Office of Noise Control under

the California Department of Health Services. The CNCA requires that the Office of Noise

Control adopt, in coordination with the Office of Planning and Research, guidelines for the

preparation and content of noise elements for general plans. The most recent guidelines

are contained in General Plan Guidelines, published by the California Office of Planning

and Research in 2003.10

The document provides land use compatibility guidelines for

cities and counties to use in their general plans in order to reduce conflicts between land

use and noise. These land use compatibility guidelines are referenced in the City of

Berkeley General Plan and are presented in Figure 10 below.

General Plan

The City of Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management Element 11

establishes

policies and actions intended to protect the community from excessive noise levels. The

policies and actions applicable to the project are presented below:

Policy EM-43 Noise Reduction: Reduce significant noise levels and minimize new sources of

noise.

Action A: Increase enforcement of the Noise Ordinance to reduce noise impacts.

Policy EM-44: Noise Prevention and Elimination: Protect public health and welfare by

eliminating existing noise problems where feasible and by preventing significant future

degradation of the acoustic environment.

Action A: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions.

10

California Office of Planning and Research, 2003. General Plan Guidelines.

11

City of Berkeley, 2003a. General Plan – Environmental Management Element.

Figure 10Noise Land Use Compatibility Matrix



Source: California O�ce of Planning and Research, 2003. General Plan Guidelines. Figure 2.

Land Use Category

Residential - Low DensitySingle Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes

Residential - Multi-Family

Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels

Schools, Libraries,Churches, Hospitals,Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, ConcertHalls, Amphitheaters

Sports Arena, OutdoorSpectator Sports

Playgrounds,Neighorhood Parks

Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemetaries

O�ce Buildings, BusinessCommercial & Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing,Utiliies, Agriculture

Community Noise ExposureL or CNEL, dB

INTERPRETATION

Normally AcceptableSpeci�ed land use is satisfactory,based upon the assumption that anybuildings involved are of normalconventional construction, withoutany special noise insulationrequirements.

Conditionally AcceptableNew construction or developmentshould be undertaken only after adetailed analysis of the noise reductionrequirements is made and needed noise insulation features included inthe design. Conventional constructionbut with closed windows and fresh airsupply systems or air conditioning will normally su�ce.

Normally UnacceptableNew construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development doesproceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Normally UnacceptableNew construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

55 60 65 70 8075dn



41

Action B: Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State, and Federal noise levels by

appropriate City departments.

Policy EM-45 Traffic Noise: Work with local and regional agencies to reduce local and

regional traffic, which is the single largest source of unacceptable noise in the city.

Action A: Encourage neighborhood traffic calming strategies that cause motorists to

slow down and decrease noise levels in all residential areas. (Also see

Transportation Policy T-20.)

Action C: Minimize potential transportation noise through proper design of street

circulation, coordination of routing, and other traffic control measures.

Policy EM-46 Noise Mitigation: Require operational limitations and all feasible noise

buffering for new uses that generate significant noise impacts near residential, institutional,

or recreational uses.

Action A: Promote use of noise insulation materials in new construction and major

rehabilitation.

Policy EM-47 Land Use Compatibility: Ensure that noise-sensitive uses, including, but not

limited to, residences, child-care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes, are protected from

detrimental noise.

Action A: Noise-sensitive development proposals should be reviewed with respect to

the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines below (refer to Figure 10).

If the noise level is within the "normally acceptable" level, noise exposure would be

acceptable for the intended land use. Development may occur without requiring an

evaluation of the noise environment unless the use could generate noise impacts on

adjacent uses.

If the noise level is within the "conditionally acceptable" level, noise exposure would

be conditionally acceptable; a specified land use may be permitted only after

detailed analysis of the noise environment and the project characteristics to

determine whether noise insulation or protection features are required. Such noise

insulation features may include measures to protect noise-sensitive outdoor activity

areas (e.g., at residences, schools, or parks) or may include building sound

insulation treatments such as sound-rated windows to protect interior spaces in

sensitive receptors.

If the noise level is within the "normally unacceptable" level, analysis and mitigation

are required. Development should generally not be undertaken unless adequate

noise mitigation options have been analyzed and appropriate mitigations

incorporated into the project to reduce the exposure of people to unacceptable

noise levels.

If the noise level is within the "clearly unacceptable" level, new construction or

development should not be undertaken unless all feasible noise mitigation options

have been analyzed and appropriate mitigations incorporated into the project to

reduce exposure of people to unacceptable noise levels.



42

City of Berkeley Municipal Code

The Community Noise Ordinance (Chapter 13.40 of the Municipal Code) regulates noise

and vibration within the City of Berkeley. Chapters 13.40.050 and 13.40.060 establish

maximum permissible day and night noise levels based on the zoning district of the

property subject to the noise, rather than the property from which the noise originates.

Because the Community Noise Ordinance is based on zoning districts rather than on the

land use within an individual property, it does not recognize residential properties located

in non-residential zoning districts. If the ambient noise levels in an area are greater than

the permissible noise levels, then the maximum permissible noise level is to be adjusted

to the ambient noise level.

Construction operations occurring between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays

and the hours of 8 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays are prohibited from

generating noise levels at affected properties that exceed the maximum permissible day

and night noise levels specified in Sections 13.40.050 and 13.40.060. Where technically

and economically feasible, construction operations occurring between the hours of 7 a.m.

and 7 p.m. on weekdays and the hours of 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekends and holidays

are prohibited from generating noise levels at affected properties that exceed the

maximum permissible day and night noise levels specified in the Section 13.40.070.B.7

(Tables 8 and 9). Furthermore, Section 13.40.070.B.7.b indicates that, where construction

noise levels have been mitigated to the extent technically and economically feasible, the

noise level is considered to be in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Section

13.40.080 indicates that being technically and economically feasible means balancing

certain factors such as the number of decibels and the amount of time the offending noise

exceeds the allowed limit; the number of persons affected; and the cost of reducing the

decibels or amount of time to come into compliance with the code.

TABLE 8 MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS FOR SHORT-TERM OPERATION (LESS THAN 10 DAYS) OF

MOBILE EQUIPMENT (DBA)

Time Period

Single- and Two-

Family Residential

Zoning Districts

Multi-Family

Residential Zoning

Districts

Commercial and

Industrial Zoning

Districts

Weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 75 80 85

Weekends 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.

and Legal Holidays 60 65 70

Source: City of Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.40.070.B.7.b.



43

TABLE 9 MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS FOR LONG-TERM OPERATION (PERIOD OF 10 DAYS OR

MORE) OF STATIONARY EQUIPMENT (DBA)

Time Period

Single- and Two-

Family Residential

Zoning Districts

Multi-Family

Residential Zoning

Districts

Commercial and

Industrial Zoning

Districts

Weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 60 65 70

Weekends 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.

and Legal Holidays 50 55 60

Source: City of Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.40.070.B.7.b.

Section 13.40.070.B.8 prohibits vibration levels that annoy or disturb two or more

“reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness” who reside in separate residences. Section

13.50.070.B.11 requires stationary machinery to be enclosed or muffled so that noise

levels in surrounding zoning districts do not exceed the thresholds specified in Sections

13.40.050 and 13.40.060 of the Community Noise Ordinance. Section 13.40.060.A.1

establishes maximum allowable interior noise levels for multi-family residences to 40 dBA

between 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and to 45 dBA between 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. The Environmental

Health Division may issue a variance for the creation of noise that conflicts with the

standards of the Community Noise Ordinance. Section 13.40.090 describes the

procedures by which a variance may be sought and granted.

Ambient Noise and Vibration Environment

The project site is located within a limited two-family residential zoning district and a

commercial zoning district, and is surrounded by limited two-family residential and

commercial zoning districts.12

The primary noise source in the vicinity of the project site is

traffic on San Pablo Avenue, which runs north to south adjacent to the eastern border of

the project site. The City of Berkeley General Plan13

indicates that in 1995, noise levels at

the project site and its vicinity from traffic along San Pablo Avenue ranged from 70 to 75

dBA Ldn. The General Plan notes that noise levels throughout the city did not change

substantially between 1973 and 1995. This is because, although traffic volumes increased

over time, traffic speeds decreased. For the same reason, it is anticipated that noise levels

from traffic along San Pablo Avenue have remained similar from 1995 to the present. A

change in noise levels would only be expected to occur along San Pablo Avenue if there was a

substantial change in land use, which could change the primary sources of noise in the

project vicinity or substantially alter the number or types of vehicles along San Pablo Avenue.

12

City of Berkeley, 1999. Land Use Zoning Districts as of March 20, 2014. Adopted March 18.

13

City of Berkeley, 2003a. Op. cit.



44

This analysis assumes that noise levels at the project site and surrounding areas have not

changed substantially since 1995 because (1) noise levels in the City of Berkeley have

historically shown little variation over time14

; (2) land use and the primary sources of noise

in the project vicinity (as described above) have not changed substantially since 1995;15, 16

and (3) although hybrid and electric vehicles have come to be used more frequently since

1995 and are known to be quieter, noise from both automobiles and city buses is dominated

by tire/pavement noise17

, and therefore the increasing use of hybrid and electric vehicles is

not anticipated to alter traffic noise along San Pablo Avenue.

There are no sources of ambient vibration at the project site or its vicinity.

Project Construction Noise

Construction is expected to occur over a period of roughly 22 months and would

temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Construction noise

levels would vary day-to-day, depending on the number and condition of the equipment

being used, the type and duration of activity being performed, the distance between the

noise source and the receptor, and the presence or absence of barrier between the noise

source and receptor. Demolition and grading are typically the noisiest phases of

construction, and would occur over the course of 4 months. The later phases of

construction include activities that are typically quieter and that occur within the building

under construction, thereby providing a barrier for noise between the construction activity

and any nearby receptors. Pile driving can generate extreme levels of noise, but no pile

driving would occur during construction of the proposed project. Table 10 shows typical

noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment that may be used

during each phase of construction. Based on the additive properties of noise, the

combined noise levels of the two noisiest pieces of equipment would range from up to 81

dBA at 50 feet during the completion of architectural coatings to up to 88 dBA at 50 feet

during grading (Table 10).18

14

Ibid.

15

City of Berkeley, 2003b. General Plan, Land Use Element.

16

City of Berkeley, 1999. Op. cit.

17

Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-

1003-06). Section 2-7. 18

A general assessment of construction noise should include the two noisiest pieces of equipment

expected to be used in each construction phase, per the Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06).



45

TABLE 10 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (DBA) AND A GENERAL

ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE

Construction

Phase

(Estimated

Duration)

Equipment

Amount

Noise Level at 50

Feet

Addition of

two noisiest

pieces of

equipment

at 50 Feet3

Staging and

Demolition

(2 months)

Concrete/Industrial Saws1

1 76

86 Rubber Tired Dozers1

1 85

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes1

3 80

Grading

(2 months)

Graders1

1 85

88 Rubber Tired Dozers1

1 85


1 80

Building

Construction

(15 months)

Cranes1

1 83

85

Generator Sets1

1 81


1 80

Welders2

3 73

Architectural

Coatings

(3 months)

Air Compressors1

1 81 81

Source:

1. Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06).

2. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, 2010.

3. A general assessment of construction noise should include the two noisiest pieces of equipment expected to

be used in each construction phase, per the Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration

Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06)].

Note:

The duration of construction phases and types of construction equipment were conservatively estimated for the

project using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (see Air Quality Section and Appendix D).

The nearest receptors to the project site are three accessory residential structures as near

as 1 foot south of the project site. A two-story apartment is located approximately 15 feet

south of the project site and four residences are also located approximately 50 feet south

of the project site. The other receptors to the project site are residential and commercial

buildings across the streets surrounding the project site. There are residential buildings

located approximately 50 feet west of the project site across 9th

Street and 50 feet north

of the project site across Jones Street. Several commercial buildings are located

approximately 85 feet across San Pablo Avenue, including auto shops, pet stores and

retail stores. A gas station is located adjacent to the project site, which is not considered

as a sensitive noise receptor because neither noise-sensitive people nor noise-sensitive



46

activities would be located at a gas station. Noise levels at 1 foot, 15 feet, 50 feet, and 85

feet are presented in Table 11, representing the addition of two noisiest pieces of

equipment during each phase, to characterize the noise impact from the proposed project

at different receptors.

TABLE 11 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT DIFFERENT DISTANCES

Construction Phase 1 Ft

(residential)

15 Ft

(residential)

50 Ft

(residential)

85 Ft

(commercial)

Demolition 128 99 86 80

Grading 130 101 88 82

Building Construction 127 98 85 79

Architectural Coatings 123 94 81 75

Long-term Stationary

Equipment Standards

(daytime)

60 60 70 60

Note:

Based on reference noise levels at 50 feet (derived from Table XII-4), the following propagation adjustment was

applied to estimate noise levels at 1 foot, 15 feet, and 85 feet.

dBA2

= dBA1

+ 10 Log10

(D1

/D2

)2.5

Where:

dBA1

is the reference noise level at a specified distance (in this case 50 feet).

dBA2

is the calculated noise level.

D1

is the reference distance (in this case 50 feet).

D2

is the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

(Source of the equation: Department of Transportation, California. 1998. Technical Noise Supplement. pp. 28)

The Community Noise Ordinance regulates stationary equipment for long-term operation

(10 days or more) and mobile equipment for short-term operation (less than 10 days).

Because construction would last more than 10 days, the short-term mobile equipment

requirements would not apply. In this analysis, the long-term stationary equipment

standards (daytime) are conservatively applied to each type of equipment. Table 11

indicates that noise levels during construction have the potential to exceed both the 60

dBA standard for two-family residential zoning districts and the 70 dBA standard for

commercial zoning districts. It should be noted that a typical building facade with

windows closed provides a noise level reduction of approximately 25 dBA,19

and therefore

interior noise levels would be substantially lower than exterior noise levels. Although the

generated noise levels could result in the exposure of the nearby residential and

19

Salter, Charles M., 1998. Op. cit.



47

commercial receptors to excessive noise, the implementation of the City of Berkeley’s

SCAs would reduce construction period noise:

Standard Conditions of Approval (SCA)

The following SCAs will be applicable to the project during its construction period.

SCA-13: Construction Noise Management - Public Notice Required. At least two

weeks prior to initiating any construction activities at the site, the applicant shall

provide notice to businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site,

including (1) project description, (2) description of construction activities, (3) daily

construction schedule (i.e., time of day) and expected duration (number of months),

(4) the name and phone number of the Noise Management Individual for the project,

(5) commitment to notify neighbors at least four days in advance of authorized

extended work hours and the reason for extended hours, (6) that construction work

is about to commence, and (7) 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) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. A copy of

such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance

to the City for review and approval.

SCA-14: Construction Noise Reduction Program. 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 the time limits for construction listed above, as measures needed to ensure

that construction complies with Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.40.070. 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



48

noise barriers or partial enclosures to acoustically shield such equipment

where feasible.

Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.

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.

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.

SCA-17: Construction Phases. The applicant shall provide the Zoning Officer with a

schedule of major construction phases with start dates and expected duration, a

description of the activities and anticipated noise levels of each phase, and the

name(s) and phone number(s) of the individual(s) directly supervising each phase.

The Zoning Officer or his/her designee shall have the authority to require an on-site

meeting with these individuals as necessary to ensure compliance with these

conditions. The applicant shall notify the Zoning Officer of any changes to this

schedule as soon as possible.

SCA-31: Construction Meeting. The applicant shall request of the Zoning Officer an

on-site meeting with City staff and key parties involved in the early phases of

construction (e.g., applicant, general contractor, foundation subcontractors) to

review these conditions and the construction schedule. The general contractor or

applicant shall ensure that all subcontractors involved in subsequent phases of

construction aware of the conditions of approval.

SCA-37: Construction Hours. Construction activity shall 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. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any

Federal Holiday. It is recognized that certain construction activities, such as the

placement of concrete, must be performed in a continuous manner and may require

an extension of these work hours. Prior to initiating any activity that might require a

longer period, the developer must notify the Zoning Officer and request an

exception for a finite period of time. If the Zoning Officer approves the request, then

two weeks prior to the expanded schedule, the developer shall notify businesses and



49

residents within 500 feet of the project site describing the expanded construction

hours. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be

provided in advance to the City for review and approval. The project shall not be

allowed more than 15 extended working days.

SCA-39: Project Construction Website. The applicant shall establish a project

construction website with the following information clearly accessible and updated

monthly or more frequently as changes warrant:

Contact information (i.e. “hotline” phone number and email address) for the

project construction manager.

Calendar and schedule of daily/weekly/monthly construction activities.

The final Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting

Program, Transportation Construction Plan, Construction Noise Reduction

Program, and any other reports or programs related to construction noise, air

quality, and traffic.

SCA-40: Extreme Construction Noise. Construction activities that may generate

extreme noise (noise greater than 90 dBA) at nearby sensitive receptors should be

limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Any work

that may generate extreme noise at nearby sensitive receptors outside of these

hours, or that needs to occur on a Saturday, must first go through the approval and

notification process described in SCA-37. Additionally, if complaints regarding noise

are received from occupants of buildings potentially exposed to extreme noise

during project construction, the noise liaison shall implement noise monitoring, if

appropriate and feasible, to determine and document whether the measures

instituted to correct the problem are effective. The results of any noise monitoring

conducted, as well as a description of the noise reduction measures implemented,

shall be provided to the Zoning Officer for review.

SCA-13 would notify businesses and residents within 500 feet of project details and

construction schedule, would allow them to voice noise complaints, and would require the

complaints to be promptly addressed. In this way, sources of potentially disruptive

construction noise could be quickly controlled or eliminated.

SCA-14 requires that the project applicant implement a noise reduction program,

prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, which addresses noise attenuation

measures for equipment and tools to the maximum extent feasible. Due to the proximity

of the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site, the noise attenuation measures may

include the erection of a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated wall, rather than a plywood

wall around the project site. An STC rating roughly equals the decibel reduction in noise



50

volume that a wall, window, or door can provide.20

The implementation of the noise

reduction program minimizes the noise generated by the use of both mobile and

stationary construction equipment and ensures quieter periods for adjacent businesses

and residents, so that they are not exposed to the highest levels of construction noise for

long periods of time. The implementation of this measure also ensures that project

construction is consistent with the Community Noise Ordinance requirement to reduce

construction noise to the maximum extent feasible.

SCA-17 ensures the construction schedule and anticipated noise levels are overseen by

the Zoning Officer. This requirement prevents the project from performing construction

activities beyond the scheduled times and ensures noise levels during different phases of

construction are anticipated before the project begins, thereby providing an opportunity

for the City to address potential noise issues prior to the start of any given phase.

SCA-31 ensures the applicant, contractor, and subcontractors are made aware of, and/or

have a chance to review, all of the SCAs prior to the start of construction.

SCA-37 provides reasonable limits on the days and hours of construction to avoid

generating noise when it would be most objectionable to neighboring residences. This

limitation prevents the disturbance of sleep for a majority of residents located close to the

project site. This SCA also requires any extension of these work hours to be approved in

advance by the Zoning Officer and requires businesses and residents within 500 feet of

the project site to be notified of such an extension. The requirement for Zoning Officer’s

approval prevents the project proponent from unnecessarily performing work outside of

allowable work hours, and allows businesses and residents to voice their concern about

longer work hours so that an impact to them can be avoided.

SCA-39 ensures the disclosure of the project details to the public and provides a hotline

phone number, so that the public is knowledgeable about construction activities and

requirements related to construction noise, and can quickly report deviances from the

requirements or any unanticipated noise problems.

SCA-40 provides more restricted limit on the days and hours of potential extreme

construction noise to prevent the disturbance of residences within 15 feet of the project

site (as indicated in Table 11, there are receptors that could be exposed to extreme noise

(greater than 90 dBA). This SCA also ensures the compliance of SCA-37 to require pre-

approval of any extension of work that may cause extreme noise. Furthermore, noise

20

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, undated. Noise Notebook, Chapter 4

Supplement, Sound Transmission Class Guidance.



51

monitoring shall be implemented if appropriate and feasible to address complaints

regarding extreme noise. In this way, extreme construction noise could be mitigated to

the extent technically and economically feasible.

The implementation of these required SCAs would ensure that construction noise levels

would be mitigated to the extent technically and economically feasible, that the public,

contractor, and subcontractors are made aware of the noise reduction requirements

specific to the proposed project, and that the public is able to voice complaints and

concerns about construction noise. In addition, since the project site and its vicinity is an

established, urbanized area, periodic exposure to construction-related noise and vibration

effects are existing conditions. So as exposures to both ongoing and periodic operational

urbanized noise sources which include regional highways, police and emergency vehicle

sirens, and other urban uses. Therefore, with the implementation of the required SCAs,

the potential of the proposed project to generate excessive noise during construction that

would violate the City of Berkeley Community Noise Ordinance is less than significant.

Ground-borne Vibration

Construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on

the equipment, activity, and relative proximity to sensitive receptors. The vibration levels

for construction equipment that could be used at the project site are summarized in Table

12. Although the table provides one vibration level for each piece of equipment, it should

be noted that there is considerable variation in reported ground vibration levels from

construction activities, primarily due to variation in soil characteristics. Since vibration

effects are typically limited to land uses that are very close to the site, vibration levels are

only calculated at 1 foot and 15 feet based on the reference levels at 25 feet.

Tables 13 and 14 summarize the vibration criteria to prevent disturbance of occupants

and to prevent damage to structures, respectively. In this analysis, the “Infrequent Events”

criterion is applied to construction equipment.

Based on the estimated construction equipment generated vibration levels in Table 12,

construction-generated vibration levels may be as high as 94 RMS VdB at the residential

area located within 15 feet of construction activities and as high as 129 RMS VdB at the

residential area located within 1 foot of construction activities when the equipment is at

its nearest point, which could exceed the 80 RMS VdB Infrequent Events threshold (Table

13). In order to maintain vibration levels from the use of construction equipment at or

below 80 RMS VdB disturbance threshold, construction equipment would need to be

located approximately 45 feet from the receptor. The center of the project site is located

approximately 135 feet north of the nearest receptor; and therefore equipment operating



52

TABLE 12 VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Equipment

PPV at 25

Ft (in/sec)

PPV at 15

Ft (in/sec)

PPV at 1 Ft

(in/sec)

RMS at 25

Ft (VdB)

RMS at 15

Ft (VdB)

RMS at 1 Ft

(VdB)

Large bulldozer 0.089 0.191 11.125

87 94 129

Loaded trucks 0.076 0.164 9.500

86 93 128

Small bulldozer 0.003 0.006 0.375

58 65 100

Source of PPV and RMS vibration levels at 25 feet: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06).

Notes: Based on vibration levels at 25 feet, the following propagation adjustment was applied to estimate PPV

vibration levels at 1foot and 15 feet assuming:

PPV2 = PPV1 x (D1/D2)1.5

Where:

PPV1 is the reference vibration level at a specified distance.

PPV2 is the calculated vibration level.

D1 is the reference distance (in this case 25 feet).

D2 is the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

Based on vibration levels at 25 feet, the following propagation adjustment was applied to estimate RMS vibration

levels at 1foot and 15 feet assuming:

RMS2 = RMS1 – 30 Log10

(D2/D1)

Where:

RMS1is the reference vibration level at a specified distance.

RMS2 is the calculated vibration level.

D1 is the reference distance (in this case 25 feet).

D2 is the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

(Source of the equations: Federal Transit Administration, Chapter 12, 2006)

TABLE 13 VIBRATION CRITERIA TO PREVENT DISTURBANCE – RMS (VDB)

Land Use Category Frequent Events 1

Occasional Events 2

Infrequent Events 3

Residences and buildings

where people normally sleep 72 75 80

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-

06).

Notes:

1 = More than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day or vibration generated by a long freight train.

2 = Between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same kind per day.

3 = Fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day.



53

TABLE 14 VIBRATION CRITERIA TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES

Building Category

PPV

(in/sec)

RMS

(VdB)

Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102

Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98

Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94

Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-

06).

across the majority of the project site does not have the potential to disturb nearby

residents. Although the screening level analysis shows that the mobile equipment used in

the proposed project has the potential to disturb residences, rubber tired vehicles (which

would be used in the proposed project) are generally unlikely to cause vibration impacts

except in unusual situation such as when project site is located near buildings containing

vibration-sensitive equipment or near historical buildings, which is not the case in this

project.21

In addition, implementation of the following SCAs will lessen the impacts of

exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration during the

construction period:


The following SCAs will be applicable to the project during its construction period.

SCA-13: Construction Noise Management - Public Notice Required (see above).

SCA-14: Construction Noise Reduction Program (see above).

SCA-37: Construction Hours (see above)

SCA-39: Project Construction Website (see above).

SCA-40: Extreme Construction Noise. (see above)

SCAs #14 and #39 ensure the disclosure of the project details and enable the public to

readily voice their complaints, so that any potentially disruptive construction vibration can

21

Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-

06)



54

be quickly controlled or eliminated. SCA-14 requires mufflers for all internal combustion

engine-driven equipment and requires stationary noise-generating equipment to be

located as far as possible from sensitive receptors, thereby reducing the potential

exposure of nearby receptors to vibration impacts caused by airborne noise. SCA-37

provides reasonable limits on the days and hours of construction to avoid generating

vibration when it would be objectionable to neighboring residences. This limitation

prevents the disturbance of sleep for a majority of residents located close to the project

site. SCA-40 limits extreme construction noise to more restricted hours to prevent the

generation of the vibration caused by airborne noise from the noisiest potential

equipment.

Since the construction of the proposed project would be temporary, the implementation of

the SCAs would reduce the potential for construction generated vibration to disturb

occupants of adjacent buildings to a less-than-significant level.

Since the nearest neighboring residential structures are as near as 1 foot south of the

project site, vibration levels could exceed the 0.2 PPV in/sec threshold (Table 14) to cause

damage to buildings. The following SCA would minimize potential adverse vibration

effects from project-related construction activities:

SCA-15: Damage Due to Construction Vibration. The project applicant shall submit

screening level analysis prior to, or concurrent with demolition building permit. If a

screening level analysis shows that the project has the potential to result in damage

to structures, a structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall be

retained to prepare a vibration impact assessment (assessment). The assessment

shall take into account project specific information such as the composition of the

structures, location of the various types of equipment used during each phase of the

project, as well as the soil characteristics in the project area, in order to determine

whether project construction may cause damage to any of the structures identified

as potentially impacted in the screening level analysis. If the assessment finds that

the project may cause damage to nearby structures, the structural engineer or other

appropriate professional shall recommend design means and methods of

construction that to avoid the potential damage, if feasible. The assessment and its

recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety

Division and the Zoning Officer. If there are no feasible design means and methods

to eliminate the potential for damage, the structural engineer or other appropriate

professional shall undertake an existing conditions study (study) of any structures

(or, in case of large buildings, of the portions of the structures) that may experience

damage. The study will establish the baseline condition of these structures,

including, but not limited to, the location and extent of any visible cracks or spalls.

The study shall include written descriptions and photographs. The study shall be

reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety Division and the Zoning Officer



55

prior to issuance of a grading permit. Upon completion of the project, the structures

(or, in case of large buildings, of the portions of the structures) previously inspected

will be resurveyed, and any new cracks or other changes shall be compared to pre-

construction conditions and a determination shall be made as to whether the

proposed project caused the damage. The findings shall be submitted to the

Building and Safety Division and the Zoning Officer for review. If it is determined

that project construction has resulted in damage to the structure, the damage shall

be repaired to the pre-existing condition by the project sponsor, provided that the

property owner approves of the repair.

Since this screening level analysis indicates that vibration damage to structures is a

concern, SCA-15 would require a vibration impact assessment to be prepared by an

appropriate professional. The assessment would include recommended feasible methods

of construction to avoid the potential damage, and would require investigation of the

structures before and after construction to determine whether damage has occurred or

shall be repaired. In this way, structures that are vulnerable to construction activities

could be followed with attention during the construction, the potential impact of the

construction activities on the structures could be investigated thoroughly, and the

potential damage could be repaired in a timely manner. Therefore, the implementation of

the SCA would reduce the potential of construction-generated vibration to cause damage

to adjacent buildings to a less-than-significant level.

Operational Noise

The primary noise generation from the long-term operation of the project would occur as

a result of the use of mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems

and from increased vehicular traffic on area roads. The building HVAC systems are

required to be enclosed or muffled so that noise from the HVAC systems do not exceed

the thresholds of 55 dBA during daytime and 45 dBA during nighttime at surrounding

residential properties, and do not exceed 65 dBA during daytime and 60 dBA nighttime at

surrounding commercial properties, as specified in Section 13.40.050 of the Municipal

Code.22

Given the existing high ambient noise levels at the project site (70 to 75 dBA Ldn),

the noise generated by the muffled or enclosed exhaust and HVAC systems at the project

site would be at least 10 dBA lower than existing conditions at surrounding residential

properties, and, based on the additive properties of noise described above, would make

no perceptible difference in what people can hear or measure. Noise generated by the

muffled or enclosed HVAC systems would be at least 5 dBA lower than existing conditions

at surrounding commercial properties. This would potentially increase noise by 1.2 dBA,

22

City of Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.40.070.B.11.b.



56

which is below the increase of 3 dBA that is needed before a change in noise levels is

perceivable. Therefore, the impact of noise generated by the muffled or enclosed HVAC

systems at the project site on surrounding residential and commercial properties would

be less than significant.

Due to the additive properties of noise, traffic volumes must nearly double for a

perceptible increase in traffic generated noise levels to occur. Peak hour (evening)

intersection turning data from the traffic study23

to evaluate where traffic volumes are

expected to experience the greatest increase as a result of operation of the proposed

project. The percent increase in traffic volumes was found to range from 0 to 3 percent,

with the exceptions of Jones Street west of San Pablo Avenue, where traffic volumes as a

result of operation of the proposed project are expected to increase by 43 percent. The

Existing and Existing Plus Project traffic volumes and predicted traffic noise for this

roadway segment are summarized in Table 15 below. Traffic noise is expected to increase

by about 1.5 dBA Leq. As this is the roadway segment with the greatest predicted increase

in traffic, traffic noise increases along other roadway segments would be less than 1.5

dBA Leq. This is below the increase of 3 dBA that is needed before a change in noise

levels is perceivable. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not

result in a significant increase in traffic noise along local area roadways.

TABLE 15 EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PREDICTED TRAFFIC

NOISE

Roadway

Segment

Existing

Traffic

Volume (PM

peak hour

number of

vehicles)

Existing Plus

Project

Traffic

Volume (PM

peak hour

number of

vehicles)

Existing

Traffic Noise

(dBA Leq at

50 feet from

centerline of

outermost

lane)

Existing Plus

Project

Traffic Noise

(dBA Leq at

50 feet from

centerline of

outermost

lane)

Estimated

Increase in

Noise (dBA

Leq)

Jones Street

west of San

Pablo Avenue

56 80 47.0 48.5 1.5

Note: Traffic noise model outputs are included in Appendix C.

Noise Exposure During Construction and Operation

Construction workers could be exposed to excessive noise from the heavy equipment

used during construction of the proposed project (Table 10). However, noise exposure of

23

AECOM, 2015. 1500 San Pablo Avenue Final Transportation Impact Study. June 17.



57

construction workers is regulated by the California Division of Occupational Safety and

Health (Cal/OSHA). Title 8, Subchapter 7, Group 15, Article 105 of the California Code of

Regulations (Control of Noise Exposure) sets noise exposure limits for workers, and

requires employers who have workers that may be exposed to noise levels above these

limits to establish a hearing conservation program, make hearing protectors available, and

keep records of employee noise exposure measurements. The construction contractor for

the proposed project would be subject to these regulations, and compliance with these

Cal/OSHA regulations will ensure that the potential of construction workers to be exposed

to excessive noise is less than significant.

The ambient noise levels at the project site range from 70 to 75 dBA Ldn.24

This noise

environment encompasses the “normally unacceptable” community noise exposure levels

for multi-family residential developments and the “conditionally acceptable” community

noise exposure levels for commercial development (Figure 10). According to Policy EM-47

of the City of Berkeley General Plan, projects exposed to a normally unacceptable noise

level are required to analyze and incorporate appropriate mitigations into the project to

reduce the exposure of people to unacceptable noise levels. Projects exposed to

conditionally acceptable noise levels are required to conduct a detailed analysis of the

noise environment and the project characteristics to determine whether noise insulation

or protection features are required.


The following SCA will be applicable to occupant noise exposure during the proposed

project operation period.

SCA-16: Interior Noise Levels. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant

shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Division and the Zoning Officer by a

qualified acoustic engineer certifying that the interior residential portions of the

project will achieve interior noise levels of no more than 45 dBA Ldn (40 dBA

evening and 45 dBA daytime). If the adopted Building Code imposes a more

restrictive standard for interior noise levels, the report shall certify compliance with

this standard.

SCA-16 requires noise reduction measures to be incorporated into building design based

upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. The noise reduction

measures would be required to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn in residential

spaces, in compliance with SCA-16; and to 50 dBA Leq in commercial spaces, in

compliance with the California Building Code. Sound-rated windows, exterior doors (such

24

City of Berkeley, 2003a. Op. cit.



58

as balcony doors), and exterior walls are commonly used to control interior noise from

exterior sources. As discussed above, an STC rating roughly equals the decibel reduction

in noise volume that a wall, window, or door can provide. Given that the ambient noise

environment at the project site currently ranges from about 70 to 75 dBA Ldn, the use of

sound-rated windows, exterior doors, and exterior walls with STC ratings ranging from

about STC 25 to about STC 30 would need to be used in order to reduce interior noise

levels from exterior sources to about 45 dBA Ldn, thereby satisfying the interior noise

standards for both residential and commercial spaces. The noise control measures are

required to be submitted to the Building Safety Division and the Zoning Officer for review

and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Compliance with SCA-16 would

therefore reduce the potential of future residents of the proposed development to be

exposed to noise in excess of standards to a less-than-significant level.

Criterion Section 15332(d): Air Quality

Yes No

Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to air

quality.

The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the

jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). In June 2010, the

BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies in the evaluation and

mitigation of air quality impacts under CEQA. The BAAQMD’s thresholds, which were

incorporated into the 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,25

established levels at which

emissions of ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOx]),

particulate matter (PM), local carbon monoxide (CO), and toxic air contaminants (TACs)

would cause significant air quality impacts. There are two fractions of PM emissions that

are regulated based on aerodynamic resistance diameters equal to or less than 10

microns (PM10) and 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

The 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were challenged, and the Alameda County Superior

Court ordered the BAAQMD to set aside its recommended thresholds of significance until

it complied with CEQA requirements. In view of the court’s order, the BAAQMD updated

the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in 2012 to exclude the recommended thresholds of

significance. However, since the adoption process and scientific soundness of the

thresholds have not been challenged, the BAAQMD’s thresholds that relate to the analysis

of the project's impacts on the environment are used in this CEQA analysis in conjunction

with the updated 2012 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.26

25

BAAQMD, 2010. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.

26

BAAQMD, 2012a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.



59

To assess potential air quality impacts relative to the BAAQMD’s thresholds, emissions of

ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated for the project’s construction and

operational phases. The BAAQMD recommends using the most current version of the

California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to estimate construction and operational

emissions of criteria pollutants for a proposed project. CalEEMod utilizes widely accepted

models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data for a variety of

land use projects that can be used if site-specific information is not available. The primary

input data used to estimate emissions associated with each of the project’s land use types

are summarized in Table 16. A copy of the CalEEMod report for the project, which

summarizes the input parameters, assumptions, and findings, is included in Appendix D.

Construction-Phase Criteria Pollutant Emissions

During construction activities, emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) from earth-

moving activities and ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the exhaust of off-road

construction equipment and on-road vehicles can potentially contribute to existing

violations of ambient air quality standards in the SFBAAB. Emissions during project

construction were estimated using the CalEEMod input parameters summarized in Table

16 and the following information:

Site preparation (i.e., vegetation removal) was not included in the analysis because

the project site is devoid of vegetation.

An estimated 2,010 tons of debris from demolition of the existing building and

parking lot was assumed to estimate emissions from off-road construction

equipment and waste hauling trips during demolition.

The concentrations of volatile-organic compounds (VOCs) in architectural coatings

were reduced from 250 grams per liter (g/L) to 150 g/L based on the regulatory

requirements for non-flat high-gloss coatings described in BAAQMD Regulation 8,

Rule 3: Architectural Coatings.

TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF LAND-USE INPUT PARAMETERS FOR CALEEMOD

Project Land-Use Type CalEEMod Land-Use Type Square Feet

Apartments Apartments Mid Rise 143,815

Townhouses Condo/Townhouse 21,311

Parking Garage Enclosed Parking Structure 69,272

Restaurant Quality Restaurant 2,000

Retail Regional Shopping Center

8,900

Notes: The total dwelling units = 170

The total lot acreage = 1.71



60

Based on the size and type of development, CalEEMod estimated that project construction

would require about 244 working days. The average daily emissions of ozone precursors

and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 were estimated over that time period and are compared to

the BAAQMD’s thresholds in Table17. The emissions for ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10

and PM2.5 were below the BAAQMD’s thresholds and, therefore, would have a less-than-

significant impact on ambient air quality standards.

TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

ROG NOx Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5

Units lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day

Emissions 21 22 1.2 1.2

BAAQMD's Thresholds 54 54 82 54

Notes: lb/day = pounds per day

Source: CalEEMod (Appendix D)

The BAAQMD does not have any quantitative threshold values for fugitive dust PM2.5 and

PM10 emissions from earth-moving activities; however, the BAAQMD considers

implementation of best management practices for fugitive dust controls during

construction sufficient to reduce related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The City of Berkeley has incorporated the BAAQMD’s recommended best management

practices for fugitive dust controls into their Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs).

Compliance with SCA-43 would ensure that the project’s impact related to emissions of

fugitive dust during construction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Standard Condition of Approval

SCA-43. Public Works - Implement BAAQMD-Recommended Measures during

Construction. For all proposed projects, BAAQMD recommends implementing all the

Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, listed below to meet the best management

practices threshold for fugitive dust:

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,

and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be

covered.

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed

using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry

power sweeping is prohibited.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.



61

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon

as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless

seeding or soil binders are used.

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use

or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California

airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of

Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at

all access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in

accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked

by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at

the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take

corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be

visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Operational-Phase Criteria Pollutant Emissions

During project operation, emissions of ozone precursors and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5

can potentially contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards in the

SFBAAB; these emissions would primarily be from mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips). Other

common sources of emissions include energy use from natural gas, consumer products,

architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. Emissions during project operations

were estimated using the CalEEMod input parameters summarized in Table 18 and the

following information:

The average weekday vehicle trip rates were adjusted for each land-use type based

on the findings of the transportation analysis for the project.27

The concentrations of VOCs in architectural coatings were reduced from 250 g/L

to 150 g/L based on the regulatory requirements for non-flat high-gloss coatings

described in BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings.

The estimated average annual and daily emissions of ozone precursors and exhaust PM10

and PM2.5 during the operational phase of the project are compared to the BAAQMD’s

Thresholds in Table 18. The estimated emissions for ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10 and

PM2.5 were below the BAAQMD’s thresholds and, therefore, would have a less-than-

significant impact on air quality standards.

27

Fehr and Peers, 2016. Personal communication between Bill Burton from Fehr and Peers and Hayley Cox

from Urban Planning Partners. January 4.



62

TABLE 18 SUMMARY OF CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DURING PROJECT OPERATION

Emissions Scenario ROG NOx

Exhaust

PM10

Exhaust

PM2.5 ROG NOx

Exhaust

PM10

Exhaust

PM2.5

Units ton/yr ton/yr ton/yr ton/yr lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day

Emissions 1.8 1.1 0.03 0.03 10 6.2 0.15 0.15

BAAQMD's Thresholds 10 10 15 10 54 54 82 54

Notes: ton/yr = tons per year; lb/day = pounds per day


Carbon Monoxide

The occurrence of localized CO concentrations, also known as “hotspots,” can impact

sensitive receptors in local communities. The source of local CO emissions is often

associated with heavy traffic congestion, which most frequently occur at signalized

intersections of high-volume roadways. According to the 2010 CEQA Air Quality

Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized

CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:

The project is consistent with an applicable Congestion Management Program

(CMP) established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated

roads or highways, regional transportation plans, and local congestion

management agency plans.

The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to

more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to

more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is

substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or

urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) serves as the County Congestion

Management Agency. The ACTC updates the County’s CMP every two years to assess,

monitor, and improve the performance of the County’s multimodal transportation system

and strengthen the integration of transportation and land use planning. The current 2015

CMP requires an analysis of any project that is expected to generate more than 100

afternoon-peak-hour vehicle trips. The proposed project is expected to generate 44

afternoon-peak-hour vehicle trips during the weekdays. Since the project would generate

less than 100 afternoon-peak-hour vehicle trips, the project is consistent with the current

CMP.



63

The intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Cedar Street southeast of the project site is the

most heavily congested intersection in the project vicinity. The daily traffic volume on San

Pablo Avenue near the Cedar Street intersection was about 18,900 in 2010.28

The hourly

traffic volumes near the San Pablo Avenue and Cedar Street intersection would be

substantially less than the daily traffic volumes. Therefore, additional traffic from the

project (44 or less trips per hour29

) would not increase traffic volumes at the intersection

to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. Furthermore, vertical and/or horizontal mixing is

not substantially limited at intersections near the project site (e.g., no tunnels, parking

garages, bridge underpasses, natural or urban street canyons, or below-grade roadways).

Since the project meets the BAAQMD screening criteria, the project would have a less-

than-significant air quality impact on nearby sensitive receptors related to local CO

concentrations.

Generation of Toxic Air Contaminants

The BAAQMD recommends evaluating potential impacts of project TAC emissions to

sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of a project.30

Based on the BAAQMD’s

thresholds, significant impacts to sensitive receptors would include an incremental

increase of ten cancer cases per million people, an acute or chronic non-cancer Hazard

Index (HI) greater than 1.0, or ambient PM2.5 concentration greater than an annual

average of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).

The project operations would not be expected to emit substantial amounts of TACs that

would significantly affect nearby sensitive receptors. However, TACs would be generated

on-site during project construction. TAC emissions during construction are primarily

diesel particulate matter (DPM) from heavy-duty diesel vehicles and equipment. The

closest sensitive receptors to the project include residential areas located immediately

south, west, and north of the project site.

In accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA),31

concentrations of PM10 were used as a basis for calculating health risks associated with

DPM. The annual average concentrations of PM10 (DPM) and PM2.5 concentrations were

estimated within 1,000 feet of the project site using the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3) air dispersion model. The input

28

ACTC, 2014. Countywide Travel Demand Model; Model Vehicle Volumes.

http://www.alamedactc.org/app_pages/view/8079. Accessed on January 5. 2015. Updated July 2014.

29

Fehr and Peers, 2015. Memorandum: 1500 San Pablo – Updated Cumulative Analysis. October 28.

30

BAAQMD, 2012a. op. cit.

31

OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk

Assessments. February.



64

parameters and assumptions used for estimating on-site emission rates are included in

Appendix D. Since the BAAQMD has not provided guidance describing how to model the

dispersion of PM10 (DPM) emissions from a construction site, modeling was performed in

accordance with guidance from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District. The dispersion of PM10 (DPM) and PM2.5 emissions were modeled using multiple

volume sources32

on the project site. The release height for each volume source was

assumed to be 5 meters (16.4 feet), which represents the mid-range of the expected

plume rise from frequently used construction equipment during daytime atmospheric

conditions. Daily emissions from construction equipment were assumed to occur over an

8 hour period between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. between Monday and Friday.33

A grid of receptors spaced 10 meters (32.8 feet) apart with receptor heights of 1.8 meters

(5.9 feet) were used to represent people at ground level in nearby residential areas.34

The

ISCST3 model input parameters included one year of BAAQMD meteorological data from

the Oakland STP station located about 3.2 miles south of the project site. The input

parameters and results of the ISCST3 model are included in Appendix D.

In accordance with guidance from the BAAQMD35

and OEHHA,36

a screening-level health

risk assessment (HRA) was conducted to calculate the incremental increase in cancer risk

and chronic HI to sensitive receptors from on-site DPM emissions during construction. The

acute HI for DPM was not calculated because an acute reference exposure level has not

been approved by OEHHA and California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the BAAQMD

does not recommend analysis of acute non-cancer health hazards from construction

activity. The annual average concentration of DPM at the maximally exposed individual

resident (MEIR)37

was used to conservatively assess potential health risks to nearby

sensitive receptors.

The cancer risk and chronic HI from on-site DPM emissions were assessed for children

under the age of 2, who represent the most sensitive individuals to adverse air quality

conditions that would likely be present at a nearby residence based on OEHHA’s age-

sensitivity factors for cancer risk. The high-end (95th percentile) daily breathing rate

32

The source of construction emissions can be modeled as a point, area, or volume source, each of which

uses different input parameters and assumptions about the air pollutant release characteristics.

33

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 2009. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in

Sacramento County. Revised June 2015.

34

Ibid.

35

BAAQMD, 2011a. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May.

36

OEHHA, 2015. op. cit.

37

A resident that may be located at the receptor location where the highest exposure to TACs emitted

from a given source or project is predicted.



65

estimated by OEHHA for a child under the age of 2 (1,090 liters per kilogram per day)38

was assumed for the HRA. It was assumed that the child receptor would be continuously

exposed to annual average concentrations of DPM over the entire duration of project

construction. The input parameters and results of the HRA are included in Appendix D.

Annual average concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 at the MEIR from the project’s

construction emissions and associated health risks are summarized and compared to the

BAAQMD’s thresholds in Table14. The estimated chronic HI for DPM from construction

emissions was below the BAAQMD’s threshold; however, the estimated excess cancer risk

and annual average PM2.5 concentration from unmitigated construction emissions were

above the BAAQMD’s Thresholds. Therefore, the project must implement DPM control

measures described under SCA-32. As shown in Table 19, implementation of the DPM

control measures under SCA-32 would reduce the cancer risk and annual average PM2.5

concentration by about 88 percent to levels below the BAAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore,

compliance with SCA-32 would ensure that the project’s impact related to emissions of

DPM and PM2.5 during construction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF THE HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR DPM AND PM2.5

EMISSIONS DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

Emissions Scenario

Diesel Particulate Matter Exhaust PM2.5

Annual

Average

Concentration

Child <2

Excess

Cancer Risk

Chronic

Hazard

Index

Annual Average

Concentration

Units (µg/m3

) (106

)-1

--- (µg/m3

)

Emissions without SCA-32 0.42 55 0.08 0.41

Emissions with SCA-32 0.05 6.6 0.01 0.05

BAAQMD's Thresholds NA 10 1 0.3

Notes: µg/m3

= micrograms per cubic meter; NA = not applicable

Bold font and shading indicates that the value exceeds the BAAQMD’s Threshold.

In accordance with SCA-32, the emissions of ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 were reduced by

requiring off-road construction equipment to be equipped with CARB certified Tier 2 engines or higher engines

and the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies.


38

OEHHA, 2015. op. cit.



66

Standard Conditions of Approval

SCA-32. Air Quality - Diesel Particulate Matter Controls during Construction. All

off-road construction equipment used for projects with construction lasting more

than 2 months shall comply with one of the following measures:

1. The project applicant shall prepare a health risk assessment that demonstrates

the project’s on-site emissions of diesel particulate matter during construction

will not exceed health risk screening criteria after a screening-level health risk

assessment is conducted in accordance with current guidance from BAAQMD

and OEHHA. The health risk assessment shall be submitted to the Public Works

Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

2. All construction equipment shall be equipped with Tier 2 or higher engines and

the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available

for the engine type (Tier 4 engines automatically meet this requirement) as

certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The equipment shall be

properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

In addition, a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (Emissions Plan) shall

be prepared that includes the following:

An equipment inventory summarizing the type of off-road equipment

required for each phase of construction, including the equipment

manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year,

engine certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.

For all VDECS, the equipment inventory shall also include the

technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, CARB

verification number level, and installation date.

A Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully

with the Emissions Plan and acknowledges that a significant violation of

the Emissions Plan shall constitute a material breach of contract.

The Emissions Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for

review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants

Future residents on the project site could be exposed to existing sources of TAC

emissions. While CEQA does not require the analysis or mitigation of potential effects the

existing environment may have on a project (with certain exceptions), an analysis of the

potential effects existing TAC sources may have on the future receptors at the project site



67

was performed to provide information to the public and decision-makers. The City of

Berkeley approved the use of the BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds for evaluating the

potential health effects on future project receptors from existing TAC sources.

The BAAQMD recommends using their online screening tools to evaluate TAC emissions

from stationary and mobile sources within 1,000 feet of a new receptor (i.e., the project

site). The screening tools provide conservative estimates of how much existing TAC

sources would contribute to cancer risk, HI, and/or PM2.5 concentrations in a community.

As summarized in Table20, sources of TAC emissions identified near the project site

included two gas stations and vehicle exhaust along San Pablo Avenue. Screening values

for the gas stations were determined using the BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening

Analysis Tool39

and the screen values were refined for stations located more than 20

meters (66 feet) away using the BAAQMD’s Gasoline Dispensing Facility Distance Multiplier

Tool.40

Screening values for San Pablo Avenue, which is located 20 feet east of the project

site, were linearly interpolated from screening tables provided in the BAAQMD’s Highway

Screening Analysis Tool.41

TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF RISKS AND HAZARDS FROM NEARBY TAC SOURCES

Plant ID Name Location

Cancer Risk

(10-6)

Chronic

Hazard

Index

PM2.5

(µg/m3)

G6992 San Pablo Mini Mart 1580 San Pablo Ave 39 0.058 ---

G91 Xtra Oil Company 1399 San Pablo Ave 0.35 A

0.001 ---

NA San Pablo Avenue 20 feet east 4.6 0.005 0.05

Cumulative Risks and Hazards: 44 0.06 0.05

Cumulative Thresholds: 100 10 0.8

Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NA = not available.

The 20-foot elevation exposure table (second floor exposures) was referenced to assess impacts from

San Pablo Avenue.

A

Value adjusted using the BAAQMD’s Gasoline Dispensing Facility Distance Multiplier Tool.

Source: BAAQMD,2016. Tools and Methodology. Accessed April 12. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-

climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools.

39

BAAQMD, 2012b. Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-

climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. Accessed December 8, 2015.

40

BAAQMD, 2012c. Gasoline Dispensing Facility Distance Multiplier Tool. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-

and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. Accessed December 8, 2015.

41

BAAQMD, 2011b. Highway Screening Analysis Tool. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-

climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. Accessed December 8, 2015.



68

Based on the screening-level analysis of nearby TAC sources, the cumulative increase in

cancer risk, chronic HI, and PM2.5 concentrations at the project site from existing TAC

sources are compared to the BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds in Table 20. The

cumulative health risks to future receptors on the project site were below the BAAQMD’s

cumulative thresholds and, therefore, existing TAC sources would have a less-than-

significant impact on the project.

Odors

Typical odor sources are generally associated with municipal, industrial, or agricultural

land uses, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities,

composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The

occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of

the source, the wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of receptors. As a mixed-use

development, the project would not be expected to generate significant odors. Land uses

surrounding the project site include mixed residential and commercial land uses, which

would also not be expected to generate significant odors. Therefore, project impacts

related to odors would be less than significant.

Criterion Section 15332(d): Water Quality

Yes No

Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to

water quality.

The project site is located within the Schoolhouse Creek Watershed, which drains much of

the northwestern portion of Berkeley into San Francisco Bay (the Bay).42

Stormwater runoff

from the proposed project would drain through an underground culvert into the

Schoolhouse Creek, which drains through another underground culvert beneath Virginia

Street and discharges into the Bay approximately 4,000 feet southwest of the project site.

Since the project would reduce the amount of existing impervious surface on the project

site, the project would not be expected to substantially increase the rate or amount of

surface water runoff. Furthermore, the quality of surface water runoff from the project site

would be regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

Program, which is enforced locally by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control

Board (Regional Water Board) and the City’s SCAs. Compliance with existing stormwater

control regulations and the City’s SCAs would ensure that the project would not result in

any significant effects relating to water quality; therefore, the project would be consistent

42

Berkeley, City of, 2009. City of Berkeley Drainage Map. January 22.



69

with the requirement of the Class 32 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section

153332(d) that the project would not result in impacts to water quality. Potential water

quality concerns associated with the project site are discussed further, below.

Groundwater Conservation

The proposed project would connect to the East Bay Municipal Utility District water system

and would not use groundwater at the site. In accordance with SCA-25, the project has

prepared and will implement the recommended water efficient landscaping measures

described in the Bay-Friendly Basics Landscape Checklist. Furthermore, the project would

reduce the amount of existing impervious surface on the project site, which would

increase the amount of local groundwater recharge.


SCA-25: Water Efficient Landscaping. Applicant shall provide an updated Bay-

Friendly Basics Landscape Checklist that includes detailed notes of any measures

that will not be fully met at the project. Landscape improvements shall be consistent

with the current versions of the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO)

and the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s Section 31: Water Efficiency

Requirements.

Stormwater Runoff

Since the proposed project would involve construction activities that would disturb over

1-acre of soil, the project would be required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for

Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activity

(Construction General Permit [CGP]). Under the CGP, preparation of a Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the site would be required. The SWPPP would include

Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent the degradation of stormwater quality,

including operating procedures and practice to control site runoff, measures to reduce the

risk of spills or leaks from reaching the receiving waters, and procedures to address minor

spills of hazardous materials.

Stormwater runoff during the operational phase of the proposed project would be subject

to Low Impact Design measures in Provision C.3 of to the NPDES Municipal Regional

Permit (MRP) under Regional Water Board Order R2-2015-0049. These measures include

source control, site design, and treatment requirements to reduce the amount of

stormwater runoff and improve the quality of the stormwater runoff.

Project implementation of the control measures for stormwater runoff required under the

CGP and MRP during construction and operation, respectively, are also enforced by the



70

City of Berkeley under SCA-41 and SCA-42. Compliance with SCA-42 and SCA-43 and

existing regulations would ensure that the project’s potential impact related to water

quality would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.


SCA-41: Stormwater Requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance

with the requirements of the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit as described in BMC Section 17.20. The following conditions apply:

A. The project plans shall identify and show site-specific Best Management Practices

(BMPs) appropriate to activities conducted on-site to limit to the maximum extent

practicable the discharge of pollutants to the City's storm drainage system,

regardless of season or weather conditions.

B. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) shall be covered; no other area shall

drain onto this area. Drains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to

the storm drain system; these drains should connect to the sanitary sewer.

Applicant shall contact the City of Berkeley and EBMUD for specific connection

and discharge requirements. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the

review, approval and conditions of the City of Berkeley and EBMUD.

C. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote

surface infiltration and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that

contribute to stormwater pollution. Where feasible, landscaping should be

designed and operated to treat runoff. When and where possible, xeriscape and

drought tolerant plants shall be incorporated into new development plans.

D. Design, location and maintenance requirements and schedules for any

stormwater quality treatment structural controls shall be submitted to the

Department of Public Works for review with respect to reasonable adequacy of

the controls. The review does not relieve the property owner of the responsibility

for complying with BMC Chapter 17.20 and future revisions to the City's overall

stormwater quality ordinances. This review shall be shall be conducted prior to

the issuance of a Building Permit.

E. All paved outdoor storage areas must be designed to reduce/limit the potential

for runoff to contact pollutants.

F. All on-site storm drain inlets/catch basins must be cleaned at least once a year

immediately prior to the rainy season. The property owner shall be responsible

for all costs associated with proper operation and maintenance of all storm

drainage facilities (pipelines, inlets, catch basins, outlets, etc.) associated with



71

the project, unless the City accepts such facilities by Council action. Additional

cleaning may be required by City of Berkeley Public Works Engineering Dept.

G. All private or public projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or

more of impervious surface must comply with Provision C.3 of the Alameda

County NPDES permit and must incorporate stormwater controls to enhance

water quality. Permit submittals shall include a Stormwater Requirement

Checklist and detailed information showing how the proposed project will meet

Provision C.3 stormwater requirements, including a) Site design measures to

reduce impervious surfaces, promote infiltration, and reduce water quality

impacts; b) Source Control Measures to keep pollutants out of stormwater

runoff; c) Stormwater treatment measures that are hydraulically sized to remove

pollutants from stormwater; d) an O & M (Operations and Maintenance)

agreement for all stormwater treatment devices and installations; and e)

Engineering calculations for all stormwater devices (both mechanical and

biological).

H. All on-site storm drain inlets must be labeled “No Dumping – Drains to Bay” or

equivalent using methods approved by the City.

I. Most washing and/or steam cleaning must be done at an appropriately equipped

facility that drains to the sanitary sewer. Any outdoor washing or pressure

washing must be managed in such a way that there is no discharge or soaps or

other pollutants to the storm drain. Sanitary connections are subject to the

review, approval and conditions of the sanitary district with jurisdiction for

receiving the discharge.

J. All loading areas must be designated to minimize “run-on” or runoff from the

area. Accumulated waste water that may contribute to the pollution of

stormwater must be drained to the sanitary sewer or intercepted and pretreated

prior to discharge to the storm drain system. The property owner shall ensure

that BMPs are implemented to prevent potential stormwater pollution. These

BMPs shall include, but are not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter

control and spill cleanup.

K. Restaurants, where deemed appropriate, must be designed with a contained area

for cleaning mats, equipment and containers. This contained wash area shall be

covered or designed to prevent run-on or run-off from the area. The area shall

not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should drain to the sanitary

sewer, or collected for ultimate disposal to the sanitary sewer. Employees shall

be instructed and signs posted indicating that all washing activities shall be



72

conducted in this area. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval

and conditions of the waste water treatment plant receiving the discharge.

L. Sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation

of litter and debris. If pressure washed, debris must be trapped and collected to

prevent entry to the storm drain system. If any cleaning agent or degreaser is

used, wash water shall not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should be

collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer

are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the sanitary district with

jurisdiction for receiving the discharge.

M. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and sub-contractors

are aware of and implement all stormwater quality control measures. Failure to

comply with the approved construction BMPs shall result in the issuance of

correction notices, citations, or a project stop work order.

SCA-42: Public Works - Construction. Construction activities that involve one or

more acres of land disturbance must comply with the State-wide general permit

requiring owner to (1) notify the State; (2) prepare and implement a Stormwater

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and (3) monitor the effectiveness of the plan.

Additional information may be found online at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov. As part of

the permit submittal, the Public Works Department will need a) a copy of the “Notice

of Intent” filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)/Division of

Water Quality; b) the Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number issued by the

SWRCB for the project; c) a copy of the SWPPP prepared for each phase of the

project; and d) the name of the individual who will be responsible for monitoring the

site for compliance to the approved SWPPP.

Groundwater Dewatering

Project construction activities may require temporary dewatering that could disturb

residual groundwater contamination beneath the project site. Long-term dewatering will

not be required for the proposed subsurface garage. As discussed under Criterion

15300.2(e) (Hazardous Waste Sites), the project will be required to prepare and

implement a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan approved by the TMD in

accordance with SCA-30. Compliance with SCA-30 would ensure that the project’s

potential impact related to residual soil groundwater contamination would be reduced

to a less-than-significant level.



73

EXCEPTIONS TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS CHECKLIST

In addition to investigating the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32),

this CEQA document also assesses whether any of the exceptions to qualifying for the

Class 32 categorical exemption for an Infill Project are present. The following analysis

compares the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) to the project

Criterion 15300.2(a): Location

Yes No

Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project due to its location in

a particularly sensitive environment, such that the project may impact an

environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely

mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies?

This possible exception applies only to CEQA exemptions under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 or 11.

Since the project qualifies as a Class 32 Urban Infill exemption, this criterion is not

applicable. However, there are no environmental resources of hazardous or critical

concern that are designated, precisely mapped or officially adopted in the vicinity of the

project site, or that could be adversely affected by the project.

Criterion 15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact

Yes No

Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project due to significant

cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type and in the same place,

over time?

General Plan and Housing Element

The City of Berkeley completed an update of the General Plan 2015-2023 Housing Element

(HE) in February 2015. The HE includes the City’s current land use strategies, policies, and

priorities for Berkeley's development and enhancement during an eight-year period. The

Initial Study and Negative Declaration certified for the HE is used to simplify the task of

preparing environmental documents on later projects that occur as a result of HE

implementation. The Negative Declaration and Initial Study did not identify any impacts,

cumulative or otherwise, associated with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element

update.

As demonstrated under Criterion Section 15332(a): General Plan and Zoning Consistency

(above), the project is consistent with the development density established by existing

zoning and General Plan policies for the site, inclusive of requested density bonus



74

waivers, and there are no peculiar aspects, other than those evaluated herein, that would

increase the severity of any of the potential significant cumulative effects identified in the

HE Negative Declaration.

The City of Berkeley’s 2015-2023 Housing Element’s Policy LU-27 Avenue Commercial

Areas identifies San Pablo Avenue as one of the commercial districts to be maintained and

improved under the plan. Specific features identified to support this policy objective

include street-facing ground floor commercial uses, pedestrian-scale development and

infill development of vacant or underutilized property compatible with existing

development patterns. Further, the HE specifically identifies the project site as a housing

opportunity site.43

Since the project is consistent with the development assumptions for the site as provided

under the HE and associated Negative Declaration, the project’s potential contribution to

cumulatively significant effects has already been addressed in this prior CEQA document.

Therefore, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which allows for streamlined

environmental review, this analysis needs only to consider whether there are project-

specific effects peculiar to the project or its site, and relies on the streamlining provisions

of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 to not re-consider cumulative effects.

Urban Site

The project site is located in an urban area on a site that has been previously developed

and that adjoins other existing urban uses on all sides, as described in the Project

Description, above.

Sustainable Communities Strategy

The adopted Plan Bay Area (2013) serves as the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the

Bay Area. As defined by Plan Bay Area, Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are areas where

new development will support the needs of residents and workers in a pedestrian-friendly

environment served by transit. The San Pablo Avenue District, the corridor running the

length of San Pablo Avenue from just north of Harrison Street southward to 67th

Street, is

considered a PDA and includes the eastern portion of the project site (zoned C-W). The

project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation, density, building intensity

and applicable land use policies for this area.

43

City of Berkeley, 2015. 2015-2023 Housing Element, Table A-6, p.226.



75

Criterion 15300.2(c): Significant Effect

Yes No

Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because there is a

reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the

environment due to unusual circumstances?

There are no known unusual circumstances applicable to the project or its site which may

result in a significant effect on the environment (see also the further discussion under

Criterion 2[e] regarding Hazardous Materials, below). Therefore, the exception under

CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) does not apply to the project.

Criterion 15300.2(d): Scenic Highway

Yes No

Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because project may

result in damage to scenic resources including but not limited to, trees, historic

buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially

designated as a state scenic highway?

The project site has no trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar visual

resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The nearest

scenic highway, the Macarthur Freeway (I-580) is located approximately 5 miles south-

southwest44,

45

, and the project site is not visible from that freeway. Given these facts, the

exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(d) does not apply to the project.

Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites

Yes No

Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because the

project is located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to

Section 65962.5 of the Government Code?

The provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the

"Cortese List". The provisions require the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC),

the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the California Department of Public

44

Department of Transportation, California. 2016. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and

Historic Parkways, Alameda County. Accessed March 25. Website:

www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm,

45

Department of Transportation, California. 2016. Route 580 – Scenic Highway. Accessed March 25.

Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm,

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm



76

Health (DPH),46

, and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

(CalRecyle) to submit information pertaining to sites associated with solid waste disposal,

hazardous waste disposal, leaking underground tank sites, and/or hazardous materials

releases to the Secretary of California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal/EPA). As

summarized in Table 21, the project site is not identified on any lists compiled pursuant

to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; therefore, an exception to the Class 32

exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) does not apply to the project.

TABLE 21 SUMMARY OF CORTESE LIST SEARCH RESULTS FOR 1500 SAN PABLO AVENUE

Government

Code Section

Responsible

Agency List Description

Project

Identified

on List?

65962.5(a)(1) DTSC List of hazardous waste facilities where DTSC have

taken or contracted for corrective action because

the owner failed to comply with an order or DTSC

determined that immediate corrective action was

necessary to abate an imminent or substantial

endangerment.

No

65962.5(a)(2) DTSC List of all land designated as hazardous waste

property or border zone property.

No

65962.5 (a)(3) DTSC List of probable unauthorized disposal of

hazardous waste on, under or into the land which

the city, county, or state agency owns or leases. As

of 1 April 2016, DTSC has not maintained or

submitted a list of these records to Cal/EPA, but

has indicated that they plan to in the future.

No

65962.5(a)(4) DTSC List of sites where a hazardous substance release

has been confirmed by on-site sampling and a

response action is required.

No

65962.5(a)(5) DTSC List of sites in the Abandoned Site Assessment

Program. DTSC concluded the Abandoned Site

Assessment Program in the 1990’s and no longer

maintains or submits a list of these records to

Cal/EPA.

No

65962.5(b) DPH List of all public drinking water wells that contain

detectable levels of organic contaminants or

require water quality analysis. Since all required

analyses required for this list were to have been

completed by 1988, DHS no longer submits a list of

these records to Cal/EPA. In addition, DHS does not

provide the location of public drinking water wells

to the public.

No

46

Formerly the California Department of Health Services.



77

Government

Code Section

Responsible

Agency List Description

Project

Identified

on List?

65962.5(c)(1) SWRCB List of all underground storage tanks for which an

unauthorized release report is filed. The SWRCB

provides information about “Leaking Underground

Storage Tank Cleanup Sites” in its GeoTracker

database, which includes reports filed each year

going back to fiscal year 1996/1997. According to

SWRCB, both "active" and “closed” sites are included

on the list.

No

Section

65962.5(c)(2)

SWRCB List of all solid waste disposal facilities from which

there is a migration of hazardous waste into water.

No

Section

65962.5(c)(3)

SWRCB List of sites for which either a Cease and Desist

Order or a Cleanup or Abatement Order was issued

that concerns the discharge of wastes that are

hazardous materials.

No

Section

65962.5(d)

CalRecycle Former list of solid waste disposal facilities from

which there is a known migration of hazardous

waste. Subsequent legislation (AB 1220 Solid Waste

Disposal Regulatory Reform Act of 1993)

superseded this requirement, and lists compiled

under Sections of 65962.5(c)(2) and/or(c)(3) should

capture this information.

No

While the site has not been identified on any lists compiled pursuant to Government Code

Section 65962.5, previous environmental assessments and investigations have identified

hazardous building materials and residual soil and groundwater contamination on the

project site. These potential hazardous materials concerns associated with the project site

are discussed further, below.

Hazardous Building Materials

In 2005, an asbestos survey identified asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in the

existing building on the project site.47

The survey did not evaluate other potential

hazardous building materials (e.g. lead-based paint) or include a plan for removing the

ACMs. In accordance with SCA-30, the project would need to prepare an updated and

complete hazardous building materials survey as well as plans to remove and dispose of

the hazardous waste or hazardous materials prior to demolition. Compliance with SCA-30

47

Krazan & Associates, Inc., 2005a. Asbestos Survey; McNevin Cadillac Property, 1500 San Pablo Avenue,

Berkeley, California. January 11.



78

and existing regulations would ensure that the project’s potential impact related to

hazardous building materials would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Soil and Groundwater Quality

As early as 1957, the project site was used as an automobile dealership. As summarized

in Table17, potential sources or pathways for hazardous materials releases on the project

site included storage of gasoline and waste oil, subsurface hydraulic lifts, floor drains, and

a battery storage room.48

TABLE 22 HISTORY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON THE PROJECT SITE

Year Background

Mid-1980s The floor drains in the existing building were plugged with Portland cement

concrete.

1985

A 1,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST) and associated fuel

dispenser were removed from the central portion of the parking lot on the east

side of the project site under the supervision of the City of Berkeley Fire

Department (CBFD).

1986 A 550-gallon waste oil UST was replaced near the southeast corner of the

existing building on the project site.

1998

A 4,000-gallon (or possibly 6,000-gallon) gasoline UST located adjacent to and

south of the former 1,000-gallon UST was removed from the project site under

the supervision of the CBFD.

2005 The floor in the battery storage area appeared to be pitted and cracked during a

Phase I ESA site reconnaissance.

2007

A 550-gallon waste oil UST was removed near the southeast corner of the

existing building and 17 subsurface hydraulic lifts were removed from within the

existing building on the project site.

Sources: Krazan & Associates, Inc., 2005b. op. cit.

Langan Treadwell Rollo, 2015. op. cit.

In 2005, two soil and groundwater investigation investigations were performed to evaluate

the following contaminants of potential concern:

Petroleum hydrocarbons from former USTs, hydraulic lifts, and floor drains on the

project site;

48

Krazan & Associates, Inc., 2005b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; McNevin Cadillac Property,

1500 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, California. January 26.



79

Sulfuric acid and lead from a battery storage room on the project site; and

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) from former offsite dry cleaning operations at the Zaitlin

Property/Walker Estate located about 100 feet east and upgradient of the project

site.

The investigations determined that there is residual petroleum hydrocarbon

contamination in soil and groundwater near the former 1,000-gallon gasoline UST and

localized acidic conditions are present in the soil beneath the battery storage room.

Detectable concentrations of PCE were not reported in a groundwater sample collected

along the east boundary of the project site; therefore, PCE contamination from the Zaitlin

Property/Walker Estate has not migrated onto the project site.49

In 2008, the City of Berkeley’s Toxic Management Division (TMD) issued a No Further

Action letter for the project site based on completion of a facility closure inspection as

well as previous soil and groundwater analytical results. According to TMD’s No Further

Action letter, the residual petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the subsurface on the

project site is most likely associated with the former gasoline USTs. TMD has recorded a

notice (flag) in the City of Berkeley building permit system to indicate that residual

petroleum hydrocarbon contamination is present on the project site and that building

permits related to the project site need to be routed through TMD for review and approval

prior to issuing building, construction or other permits.50

In March 2015, a Phase I ESA was prepared for the project site in accordance with ASTM

Practice E1527-13. The Phase I ESA did not identify any Recognized Environmental

Conditions (RECs) on the project site due to the presence or likely presence, use, or

release on the project site of hazardous substances or petroleum products. However, the

Phase I ESA did identify a controlled REC due to residual contamination from a past

release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the

satisfaction of the TMD.51

Since the proposed project is a mixed-use development located in an Environmental

Management Area, an updated Phase I ESA report will need to be submitted to the TMD

for review in accordance with SCA-30. Based on review of the updated Phase I ESA, the

TMD may require a Phase II site investigation to further evaluate the quality of soil and/or

groundwater for reuse. In addition, the project will be required to prepare and implement

49

Krazan & Associates, Inc., 2005c. Summary of Resulting and Findings; Additional Soil and Groundwater

Assessment, McNevin Cadillac, 1500 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, California. November 4.

50

Langan Treadwell Rollo, 2015. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; 1500 San Pablo Avenue,

Berkeley, California. March 12.

51

Langan Treadwell Rollo, 2015. op. cit.



80

a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan approved by the TMD that describes how to

manage potential residual contamination in the soil and groundwater on the project site

during construction activities (e.g., temporary dewatering). Long-term dewatering will not

be required for the proposed subsurface garage. Compliance with SCA-30 would ensure

that the project’s potential impact related to residual soil and groundwater contamination

would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.


SCA-30: Toxics. The applicant shall contact the Toxics Management Division (TMD)

at 2120 Milvia, 3rd Floor or (510) 981-7470 to determine which of the following

environmental documents are required and timing for their submittal:

1. Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (latest ASTM 1527-13)

A recent Phase I ESA (less than 6 months old*) shall be submitted to TMD for

developments for:

a. All new commercial, industrial and mixed use developments and all large

improvement projects.

b. All new residential buildings with 5 or more dwelling units located in the

Environmental Management Area (or EMA).

EMA is available online at: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/

uploadedFiles/IT/Level_3_-_General/ema.pdf

Phase II ESA is required to evaluate Recognized Environmental Conditions

(REC) identified in the Phase I or other RECs identified by TMD staff.

The TMD may require a third party toxicologist to review human or

ecological health risks that may be identified. The applicant may apply to

the appropriate state, regional or county cleanup agency to evaluate the

risks.

* If the Phase I is over 6 months old, it will require a new site

reconnaissance and interviews. If the facility was subject to regulation

under Title 15 of the Berkeley Municipal Code since the last Phase I was

conducted, a new records review must be performed.

2. Soil and Groundwater Management Plan

A Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) shall be submitted to TMD

for all non-residential projects, and residential or mixed-use projects with



81

five or more dwelling units, that: (1) are in the Environmental Management

Area (EMA) and (2) propose any excavations deeper than 5 feet below grade.

The SGMP shall be site specific and identify procedures for soil and

groundwater management including identification of pollutants and disposal

methods. The SGMP will identify permits required and comply with all

applicable local, state and regional requirements.

The SGMP shall require notification to TMD of any hazardous materials found

in soils and groundwater during development. The SGMP will provide

guidance on managing odors during excavation. The SGMP will provide the

name and phone number of the individual responsible for implementing the

SGMP and post the name and phone number for the person responding to

community questions and complaints.

TMD may impose additional conditions as deemed necessary. All

requirements of the approved SGMP shall be deemed conditions of approval

of this Use Permit.

3. Building Materials Survey

Prior to approving any permit for partial or complete demolition and

renovation activities involving the removal of 20 square or lineal feet of

interior or exterior walls, a building materials survey shall be conducted by a

qualified professional. The survey shall include, but not be limited to,

identification of any lead-based paint, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl

(PCB) containing equipment, hydraulic fluids in elevators or lifts, refrigeration

systems, treated wood and mercury containing devices (including fluorescent

light bulbs and mercury switches). The Survey shall include plans on

hazardous waste or hazardous materials removal, reuse or disposal

procedures to be implemented that fully comply state hazardous waste

generator requirements (22 California Code of Regulations 66260 et seq).

The Survey becomes a condition of any building or demolition permit for the

project. Documentation evidencing disposal of hazardous waste in

compliance with the survey shall be submitted to TMD within 30 days of the

completion of the demolition. If asbestos is identified, Bay Area Air Quality

Management District Regulation 11-2-401.3 a notification must be made and

the J number must be made available to the City of Berkeley Permit Service

Center.

4. Hazardous Materials Business Plan

A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) in compliance with BMC Section

15.12.040 shall be submitted electronically at http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/



82

within 30 days if on-site hazardous materials exceed BMC 15.20.040. HMBP

requirement can be found at http://ci.berkeley.ca.us/hmr/

Criterion 15300.2(f): Historical Resources

Yes No

Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because the project

may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource?

Historic Resources

An assessment of the historic significance of the existing building was prepared by

Preservation Architecture and was submitted as part of the project application.52

The City

of Berkeley’s Landmarks Preservation Committee reviewed the application on June 4,

2015, and conditionally approved the demolition permit associated with the application.

As described in this assessment, East Bay architect Paul H. Hammarberg designed the

existing building at 1500 San Pablo Avenue. Mr. Hammarberg was a graduate of the

University of California at Berkeley’s school of architecture in 1933 and is known to have

designed several mid-century residences. The firm of Hammarberg and Herman, which he

formed with partner Arthur C. Herman in 1961, designed a variety of Bay Area shopping

centers, apartment buildings, and residences. None of Hammarberg’s works, including the

auto sales showroom at 1500 San Pablo Avenue, are considered works of architectural or

historical importance.

The building was constructed for the Shepard Cadillac Co. by F.P. Lathrop Construction

Company in 1957. Shepard maintained ownership and occupancy of the dealership until

McNevin Cadillac took control of the property in 1967. McNevin closed their operations in

2006 but retained ownership of the building until 2008. Hammarberg designed the

Modernist edifice as an automobile showroom. The portion of the building that was not

dedicated showroom space, the service structure, was a steel structure finished with a

rough masonry curtain. The site, by design, contained ample parking, which was an

important feature for a mid-century dealership on a busy thoroughfare. The low exterior

planters, original signage, and exterior lighting are no longer present. A masonry-clad

structure was added to the south side of the showroom in 1980. The addition filled the

inside corner between the showroom and the service structure, diminishing the glass

pavilion to a 3-sided, attached, and no longer transparent structure.

52

Preservation Architecture, 2014. 1500 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, Historic Resources Evaluation.

December.



83

The building was evaluated by Mark Hulbert of Preservation Architecture in 2008 (rev.

2014). In addition to recording the building’s physical features, the Historic Resources

Evaluation presented a historic context for the property and evaluated the property in

light of the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and

the City of Berkeley Landmarks and Structures of Merit per the City of Berkeley Landmarks

Preservation Ordinance.

The property reflects changing land values and the resulting shift in land use that saw

commercial interests like auto dealerships move from more central locations to secondary

locations such as San Pablo Avenue. Despite this association with a general trend, the

dealership was not part of an auto-oriented row to which it could be considered a

contributor, nor does the building now relate to other local areas where there may be an

auto dealership context. No events or people important to history are associated with the

building and Hammarberg’s works have been described as “earnest yet standard

architectural efforts.” This building, in particular, does not convey modern architectural

importance. Additionally, no directly or indirectly associated city or regional planning and

economic development patterns are of identifiable import to this resource. Finally, this

individual property does not fit into any significant pattern with respect to its

neighborhood.

Hulbert’s analysis concluded that the building at 1500 San Pablo Avenue does not meet

any of the criteria for listing in the CRHR (Criterion 1-4) and that it does not meet

eligibility requirements for listing as a City of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit. In

March 2016, WSA architectural historian, Aimee Arrigoni, M.A., reviewed the Historic

Resources Evaluation of the structure prepared by Mark Hulbert of Preservation

Architecture (2008, rev. December 2014) and concurs with the findings therein.

As a result, 1500 San Pablo Avenue is not considered a historic resource under CEQA and

therefore there would not be any impacts to historic resources if the building were

demolished to accommodate new construction on the site.

Given these facts, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(d) regarding

impacts to an historic building does not apply to the project.

Archaeological Resources

No archaeological research, investigations or database searches have been conducted for

the property. The project site is located within an urbanized portion of the city, has been

previously disturbed by development, and is surrounded by other urban development. As

a result, archeological resources are not anticipated to be encountered with

implementation of the proposed project. Implementation of the following SCAs would

ensure that any resources that may be discovered are recovered and that appropriate



84

procedures are followed in the event of accidental discovery to minimize potential risk of

impact on archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level.


SCA-33: Archaeological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or

construction). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), “provisions for historical or

unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” should be

instituted. Therefore, in the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural

resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the

resources shall be halted and the project applicant and/or lead agency shall consult with a

qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find.

a. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project

proponent and/or lead agency and the qualified archaeologist would meet to

determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate measure,

with the ultimate determination to be made by the City of Berkeley. All

significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis,

professional museum curation, and a report prepared by the qualified

archaeologist according to current professional standards.

b. In considering any suggested measure proposed by the consulting archaeologist

in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological

resources, the project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is necessary

and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design,

costs, and other considerations.

c. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data

recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site

while measure for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is

carried out.

d. If an archaeological artifact or feature be discovered on-site during project

construction, all activities within a 50-foot radius of the find would be halted

until the findings can be fully investigated by a qualified archaeologist to

evaluate the find and assess the significance of the find according to the CEQA

definition of a historical or unique archaeological resource.

e. If the deposit is determined to be significant, the project applicant and the

qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate avoidance

measures or other appropriate measure, subject to approval by the City of

Berkeley, which shall assure implementation of appropriate measure measures

recommended by the archaeologist. Should archaeologically-significant materials

be recovered, the qualified archaeologist shall recommend appropriate analysis

and treatment, and shall prepare a report on the findings for submittal to the

Northwest Information Center.



85

SCA-35: Human Remains (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or

construction). In the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project

site during construction or ground-breaking activities, all work shall immediately

halt and the Alameda County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains,

and following the procedures and protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of

the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native

American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission

(NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,

and all excavation and site preparation activities shall cease within a 50-foot radius

of the find until appropriate arrangements are made. If the agencies determine that

avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific

steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities. Monitoring, data

recovery, determination of significance and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall

be completed expeditiously.

SCA-36: Paleontological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading,

and/or construction). In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological

resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be

temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified

paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP 1995,1996]).

The qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the

potential resource, and assess the significance of the find. The paleontologist shall

notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed

before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City

determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an

excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the

resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan shall be

submitted to the City for review and approval.

With required implementation of these SCAs, potential adverse effect on as-yet

undiscovered historic resources will be less than significant, and the exception under

CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) does not apply.

Criterion 15300.2: Other Potential Effects

Yes No

Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because the project

may result in substantial adverse impacts other than those discussed above?

Based on City of Berkeley threshold criteria, no additional substantial adverse impacts

beyond those discussed above are anticipated.



86

1500 san pablo avenue project - berkeley, … · i 1500 san pablo avenue project class 32 ceqa...

Documents