regular meeting of the planning commission this … · 3/24/2010 · letter from john english to...

Planning Commission

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981-7474 Fax: 510.981.7490 E-mail: [email protected]

AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

This meeting is held in a wheelchair accessible location.

March 24, 2010 North Berkeley Senior Center 7:00 PM 1901 Hearst Avenue

See “MEETING PROCEDURES” below.

All written materials identified on this agenda are available on the Planning Commission webpage: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=13072

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1. Roll Call

2. Order of Agenda: The Commission may rearrange the agenda or place additional agendized items on the Consent Calendar.

3. Public Comment: Comments on subjects not included on the agenda. Speakers may comment on agenda items when the Commission hears those items. See “Public Testimony Guidelines” below.

4. Planning Staff Report: In addition to the items below, additional matters may be reported at the meeting.

5. Chairperson’s Report: Report by Planning Commission Chair.

6. Committee Reports: Reports by Commission committees or liaisons. In addition to the items below, additional matters may be reported at the meeting.

7. Approval of Minutes: Draft minutes of March 10, 2010 (attached).

8. Future Agenda Items and Other Planning-Related Events (attached).

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS See “Consent Calendar Guidelines” below. None

AGENDA ITEMS: All Matters are for discussion and possible action. Public Hearing items require hearing prior to Commission action.

9. Discussion/Action: West Berkeley Project Public Hearing on the Draft EIR (Cont) Recommendation/

Commission action: Take comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prior to closing the public hearing.

Written Materials: None. (Note, Commissioners received the EIR at a previous meeting)

Web Information: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=10764 Continued From: None.

of 4

10. Discussion/Action: Work Plan Discussion: Next Steps Recommendation/

Commission action: Consider the staff proposal for the Planning Commission work plan for FY2010-2011.

Written Materials: Report attached. Web Information: None. Continued From: None.

ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS: In compliance with Brown Act regulations, no action may be taken on these items. However, discussion may occur at this meeting upon Commissioner request.

Information Reports:

11. Draft Master Use Permit (MUP) West Berkeley Zoning Language (attached) 12. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and Initial Study Checklist on the

Draft 2009-2014 Berkeley Housing Element (attached)

Communications Letter from John English to Wendy Cosin, Deputy Planning Director, re: Comments on

the WBP DEIR, dated March 17, 2010 Letter from Darrell de Tienne to Wendy Cosin, Deputy Planning Director, re: WBP

DEIR, March 12, 2010 Letter and attachments from Jurgen Aust re: the SOSIP process, dated March 8, 2010

Late Communications handed out at a previous meeting (copies available from the Berkeley Planning Department office, 981-7410).

Memorandum from Alex Amoroso, Principal Planner to Members of the Planning Commission, re: West Berkeley Project Zoning Language Transmittal v. 1/21/10, received March 10, 2010

Flyer from the Berkeley Office of Economic Development, Business, Employment and labor Force Trends, received March 10, 2010

Handout from John English titled “Potential comments on the West Berkeley Project Draft EIR,” received March 10, 2010

Letter from Rebecca Hobbs of Orton Development titled “RE: Ordinance # 7125,” received March 10, 2010

Letter to Wendy Cosin titled “Subject: Comments and Critique of West Berkeley Project (WBP) and Draft Programmatic EIR (DEIR),” received March 10, 2010

Letter from Wendel Rosen, titled “Re: West Berkeley Project and comments on Creation of the MUP Overlay Zone for West Berkeley PPC – 2424 4th Street, Berkeley,” received March 10, 2010

Letter from Roland Peterson of Telegraph Business Improvement District regarding the removal of C-T zoning district from consideration in the proposed revisions, received March 10, 2010

Letter from Michael Ziegler titled “Re: Zoning considerations and MUP process for Temescal Business Center,” received March 10, 2010.

Letter from Alan Tobey titled “How to Turn Right in Berkeley (from Bancroft to Telegraph, with a Bus),” received March 10, 2010

of 4

MEETING PROCEDURES Public Testimony Guidelines

Speakers are customarily allotted up to three minutes each. The Commission Chair may limit the number of speakers and the length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all items on the Agenda. To speak during Public Comment or during a Public Hearing, please submit a speaker card to the Secretary by 7:15 p.m., or at the Planning Department zoning counter by 5:00 p.m. (2120 Milvia Street). Customarily speakers are asked to address agenda items when the items are before the Commission rather than during the general public comment period.

Speakers are encouraged to submit comments in writing. See “Procedures for correspondence to the Commissioners” below.

Consent Calendar Guidelines

The Consent Calendar allows the Commission to take action with no discussion on projects to which no one objects. The Commission may place items on the Consent Calendar if no one present wishes to testify on an item. Anyone present who wishes to speak on an item should submit a speaker card prior to the start of the meeting, or raise his or her hand and advise the Chairperson, and the item will be pulled from the consent calendar for public comment and discussion prior to action. Procedures for correspondence to the Commissioners: To distribute correspondence to Commissioners prior to the meeting date -- submit

comments by 12:00 noon, seven (7) days before the meeting. Please provide 15 copies of any correspondence with more than ten (10) pages.

Any correspondence received after this deadline will be given to Commissioners on the meeting date just prior to the meeting.

Staff will not deliver to Commissioners any additional written (or email) materials received after 12:00 noon on the day of the meeting.

Members of the public may submit written comments themselves early in the meeting. To distribute correspondence at the meeting, please provide 15 copies and submit to the Planning Commission Secretary just before or at the beginning of the meeting.

Written comments should be directed to the Planning Commission Secretary at the Land Use Planning Division (Attn: Planning Commission Secretary).

Communications Are Public Records: Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information. Written material may be viewed in advance of the meeting at the Planning and Development Department, 2118 Milvia Street, First Floor, during working hours or at the Main Branch Library, Shattuck/Kittredge Streets, during regular library hours at the Reference Desk.

of 4

Accommodations Provided Upon Request. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6346(V) or 981-7075 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Note: If you object to a project or to any City action or procedure relating to the project application, any lawsuit which you may later file may be limited to those issues raised by you or someone else in the public hearing on the project, or in written communication delivered at or prior to the public hearing. The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge related to these applications is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitations period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred.

ΩΩΩ Please refrain from wearing scented products to public meetings.

DRAFT MINUTES OF REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 10, 2010

- 1 -

Time: The meeting was called to order by Chair Stoloff at 7:05 p.m. 1

Location: North Berkeley Senior Center. 2

ROLL CALL 3

Commissioners Present: Clarke, Dacey, Eisen, Gurley, Novosel, Pollack, 4 Poschman, Samuels, Stoloff. 5

Staff Present: Amoroso, Cosin, Greene, Munowitch, Sanderson. 6

ORDER OF THE AGENDA 7

No Change. 8

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 9

Speaker 1: Rebecca Hobbs stated she is working on the Flint Ink site in West 10 Berkeley, including changes that involve demising of space from a single 11 tenant to multiple tenants. She stated that she is having trouble with parking 12 requirements and requested a cleanup zoning amendment to remove the 13 parking requirement for the demising of space. 14

PLANNING STAFF REPORT 15

None. 16

CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT 17

None. 18

COMMITTEE REPORTS 19

Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP) Subcommittee Chair Jim 20 Novosel informed the commission of the subcommittee’s meeting on Monday, 21 March 8, 2010. He stated the subcommittee discussed 5 different study areas 22 and had a straw vote on recommendations for those study areas. 23

UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS 24

None. 25

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 26

Motion/Second/Carried to approve the draft minutes of February 24, 2010 27 (GP/JN). Ayes: Clarke, Dacey, Eisen, Gurley, Novosel, Pollack, Poschman, 28 Samuels, Stoloff. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. 29


- 2 -

AGENDA ITEMS 30

Item 9: West Berkeley Project Public Hearing on the Draft EIR 31 Staff discussed the staff report and background information for the West 32 Berkeley Project Draft EIR. 33

Motion/Second/Carried to open public hearing (GP/PD). Ayes: Clarke, Dacey, 34 Eisen, Gurley, Novosel, Pollack, Poschman, Samuels, Stoloff. Noes: None. 35 Abstain: None. Absent: None. 36

Public Comment: 37 Speaker 1: Barbara Bowman stated her concern over shadow impacts not 38

being protected enough for individual home owners and would like to see 39 more protections for private residences against shadow impacts. 40

Speaker 2: David Bowman stated his concern on the views. He states that 41 West Berkeley does have views worth protecting. 42

Speaker 3: George Martin stated his concern over industrial properties not 43 having enough protections. 44

Speaker 4: Edward Moore stated that his support of protections for views and 45 that there is no topographical description of what the West Berkeley project 46 proposes. He requests an amendment to the DEIR and an extension of the 47 public comment period. He also stated his concern of the increase in 48 employees on traffic. 49

Speaker 5: Ed Herzog stated his concern that nobody on the Planning 50 Commission is from West Berkeley. 51

Speaker 6: Toni Mester stated her concern of the lack of maps within the DEIR 52 and her concern with the lack protections for views. She also stated that the 53 water table is not mentioned in the DEIR and it needs to be put in a hydrology 54 section. She stated with her concern over the quality of air quality section 55 and lack of a hazard section. 56

Speaker 7: Rick Auerbach stated that the DEIR is inadequate, he stated 57 concern about the increase in employee density, and that allowing R&D will 58 need to be studied. He also that the DEIR does not mention modifying the 59 general plan or specific plans and stated his concern that the specificied 60 zoning changes do not state opening up industrial protections. 61

Speaker 8: Cathleen Quandt stated her concern that the height limits are 62 misstated and the project doesn’t reflect community character. 63

Speaker 9: Patrick Sheahan stated that the ‘flatlands’ are not actually flat and 64 the views throughout Berkeley will be effected by the buildings. He stated 65 that projected capacity can be reached under current zoning code and stated 66 that higher FAR and height are not necessary. 67

Speaker 10: Claire Risley stated her concern over the lack of view protections 68 and quoted Jane Jacobs indicating that West Berkeley is vital to the character 69 of Berkeley. 70

Speaker 11: Mary Lou Van Deventer stated that the section in the DEIR titled 71 Minerals says that there are no mines in Berkeley and the transfer stations 72


- 3 -

operations are not affected. She stated that there are mines for the 73 secondary materials industry that produces primary materials and that the 74 transfer station operations will be affected negatively. 75

Chair moved to continue the public hearing to March 24th without objection. 76

Item 10: Bus Rapid Transit – Staff Alternative for BRT Build Option 77 Staff introduced the staff report, discussed the history of the BRT process and 78 discussed the input from AC Transit about limited flexibility to modify the BRT 79 Build Alternative after preparation of the FEIS. 80

Public Comment: 81 Speaker 1: Merrilie Mitchell stated that Berkeley has the most congested 82

streets with the most accidents. She stated her concern that the BRT will 83 take out local busses and not remove congestion from streets. 84

Speaker 2: Alan Tobey stated that the staff version takes politically palatable 85 solutions and inserts them into the Build Alternative. He stated his support of 86 reaffirming the original Planning commission Build Alternative. 87

Staff discussed why two-way mixed flow Telegraph with BRT would not be truly 88 viable due to traffic light syncing issue in two different directions. Commissioners 89 discussed the course of action the commission should take and decided on 90 having two different motions based upon the correct understanding of the 91 EIR/EIS process. 92 93 Motion/Second/Carried to accept staff’s recommendation under the assumption 94 that the Build Alternative could not be modified after the FEIS is released 95 (TC/PD). Ayes: Clarke, Dacey, Gurley, Samuels, Stoloff. Noes: None. Abstain: 96 Eisen, Novosel, Pollack, Poschman. Absent: None. 97

ADJOURNMENT 98

The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm 99

Commissioners in attendance: 9 100 Members of the public in attendance: 30 101 Public Speakers: 13 102 Length of the meeting: 2 hour 35 minutes 103

This page left intentionally blank

Item 8 March 24, 2010 Planning Commission Future Agenda Items The following schedule provides staff’s best estimate of agenda items for future meetings. Please consult the Planning Commission website for meeting agendas: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=13072 April 14 West Berkeley Project: Discussion of the proposed zoning changes Downtown Area Plan: Presentation on the revised DAP April 28 Telecom Clean-Up Amendments: Public Hearing Downtown Area Plan: Public Hearing on the revised DAP

May 12 Downtown Area Plan: Recommendation to City Council on the revised DAP Housing Element: Consider and provide feedback on revisions in response to HCD

comment letter

May 26 West Berkeley Project: Continued discussion of the proposed zoning changes

June 9 Housing Element: Public Hearing and recommendation to City Council West Berkeley Project: Set hearing on proposed zoning language June 23 Peerless Greens Preview (tentative) Zoning Amendment for Library Building Modifications: Set Hearing July 14 West Berkeley Project: Public hearing on proposed zoning language July 28 Zoning Amendment for Library Building Modifications: Public Hearing

Work P Item 10 March 24, 2010

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

STAFF REPORT DATE: March 24, 2010 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Alex Amoroso Principal Planner SUBJECT: Work Plan 2010-11 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Commission review the Work Plan, suggest modifications to be considered by the City Council and then recommend the Work Program to the City Council. Summary The 2010-11 Work Plan includes a number of projects that staff has identified for work during the next couple of years. This list of projects is derived from conversation with the Commission, referrals from the City Council and a list of past work program items, which have yet to be undertaken. As has been evidenced over the last two years, policy projects tend to morph in scope and often take longer than originally assumed. To address these issues, staff is also proposing a scoping session with the Commission for new projects. Staff will use this scoping session to formulate a more precise project scope, to better estimate project duration and to confirming staffing needs for each project. The Work Plan also shows a number of projects, which are still in process and expected to be completed during the coming fiscal year. The application of staff resources to complete these projects is based on assumptions about remaining steps and anticipated staffing needs during those remaining steps. Several projects will require less staff time once they have completed Planning Commission level scrutiny and are prepared for Council consideration. The purpose for this Commission discussion is to obtain Commission input on the proposed list of projects and resource (staff time) allocations (see Attachment 1). The

Work Plan Item 10 3/24/10

Page 2 of 4

Commission input will be outlined as part of the staff report to the City Council, concurrent with Council’s consideration of the FY110/11 Budget. Discussion Projects New/Proposed – Response to Palmer The City Council has directed Housing and Planning staffs to consider opportunities to develop affordable housing units within the City. Recent court decisions suggest that the City need new methods to incentivize and require affordable units through State Density Bonus and City of Berkeley inclusionary programs. The Project will focus primarily on opportunities that encourage voluntary development of affordable housing units and bring more affordable units into the City housing stock. Alternatives such as local “density bonus”, which might mimic State density bonus, are among the options to be developed and considered. The City Council is currently considering these options. Proposed staff allocation: .5 FTE San Pablo Design Guidelines The S.P. Design Guidelines Project has been on hold for several years. The intent of the Project is to evaluate and refine design and development opportunities and constraints along San Pablo Avenue. Upcoming discussion on the density bonus and inclusionary alternatives will influence and inform this Project. The Project will focus on the draft design guidelines, other zoning and general plan designations combining to influence development along the boulevard. There may be opportunities to re-evaluate the concept and application of “nodes” and the development potential between the nodes identified along San Pablo. Further, community concerns about the intensity, height and proximity of development to lower density residential will be considered. Proposed staff allocation: .75 FTE South Berkeley Community Project Several members of the Commission, the Council and staff have noted the need to focus in South Berkeley. The City Health and Transportation departments are also active in the South Berkeley community. The Project focus is not yet defined from a Planning perspective. However, we anticipate meeting with other City departments to understand their foci and activities, do some preliminary research in the area and talk to the Commission about opportunities. This would be followed by a set of community meetings (perhaps with our sister agencies) to better understand the interests and needs of the community. The Commission would then be engaged to refine the scope of a South Berkeley Project.


Page 3 of 4

Proposed staff allocation: .75 FTE Zoning Modifications This category includes “mini-projects,” which might entail zoning ordinance and general plan updates as identified through a number of different sources including Council and Commission referrals, current planning project-initiated, and staff-identified zoning fixes, and others. As our past year’s efforts revealed, the list of potential minor zoning modifications would far exceed the Department’s resources. In order to prioritize these projects, staff will evaluate the proposed zoning modifications and focus on projects that help implement the Climate Action Plan and support economic development. These projects might be similar to this past year’s amendments to downtown zoning requirements and the “quickie” West Berkeley amendments. Proposed staff allocation: .85 FTE (multiple staff involved) To Complete and Clean-up – Housing Element It is anticipated that the Commission will finish its work on the Housing Element by this summer and that follow-up with Housing & Community Development and the Council will take until mid-Fall, 2010. Related follow-up work will initially focus on the post-Palmer discussions, then continue with State legislated homeless shelter zoning work. West Berkeley Project The Commission will have the opportunity to complete work on the WBP by end of July 2010, with anticipated discussion and action at the Council in mid to late fall. No additional follow-up projects have been identified for the WBP, but additional work could develop as a result of Commission discussions and decisions. Bus Rapid Transit The first and most complicated, staff intensive, portion of the BRT process is the development and recommendation (by Council) of a “build alternative” for evaluation in the BRT FEIS (being developed by the FTA and AC Transit). Assuming that ACTransit completes the FEIS during the summer 2010 and makes results available to the City in August or September, further Commission and Council activities may resume in early-Fall. The Commission may be asked to consider a final “build” configuration for recommendation to the Council, as early as fall 2010. This level of activity may take significant staff focus for several months, depending on the level of interest in BRT for Berkeley. South Side Plan The SSP is due to be completed in the late fall and requires completion of the FEIR, as well as finalizing changes to the plan proposed by the Commission sub-committee.


Page 4 of 4

Downtown Area Plan Downtown Area Plan activity will continue with both consideration of the new DAP alternative proposed by the Office of the Mayor (into Summer) and follow-up implementation of the DAP, such as the Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan and other Downtown Area Plan implementation projects. The DAP and follow-up activities are anticipated to continue for most of next fiscal year, as funding is available. Ongoing Activities PC Administration – This set of activities includes:

Preparation of Commission packets and materials, management of Commission and other related meetings, Commission record keeping and public information, notification and outreach.

Tracking and staff work for projects through to completion with the Council Coordination with other departments, agencies and the public regarding

Commission matters This short list of activities, and other duties that arise, take approximately one half of a staff person to address. Proposed staff allocation: .50 FTE Grant Funding and Proposals – Staff will apply for grants and other funds to support projects and activities identified within this work program. This process includes a wide range of activities including tracking funds and sources, writing and coordinating proposals and interaction with other departments and agencies. Proposed staff allocation: .10 FTE Conclusion and Next Steps Staff has provided a reasonable work plan/program to begin in the coming fiscal year, FY2010/2011. We expect that a number of these projects will fold into the work plan for the following fiscal year (2011/2012) and that other projects will be brought forward by way of Council direction, possibly adjusting the work program’s priorities or schedule. Staff requests that the Commission provide feedback on the work plan, and then refer it to the Council. The work plan will then be used as a part of the budget and programming discussion for the coming year. Attachments:

1. 2010 Proposed Work Plan

Planning DepartmentLand Use Planning Division - FY 2010 Work Plan

Item FTE Planner

Jul-0

9

Aug

-09

Sep-

09

Oct

-09

Nov

-09

Dec

-09

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr

-10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug

-10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr

-11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Housing Element Update 0.50 JH 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

West Berkeley Project 1.00 CA 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

Bus Rapid Transit 1.00 EG 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Southside Plan 1.00 EG 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

PC Administration 0.50 JH 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Grant Applications 0.10 CA 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

Density Bonus Ordinance / Affordable Housing Resp. 0.50 JH 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

San Pablo Design Guidelines 0.75 CA 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

South Berkeley Community Project 0.50 EG 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Zoning Modifications 0.15 CA 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

Zoning Modifications 0.50 EG 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

Zoning Modifications 0.50 JH 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

FTE Totals: 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

2010 Proposed Work Plan

FY 09-10 FY 10-11

In P

rogr

ess

or

Ong

oing

New

Item

s

Item # 11 West Berkeley Project Informational Item March 24, 2010

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

Transmittal Memorandum DATE: March 24, 2010 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Alex Amoroso, Principal Planner Claudine Asbagh, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Transmittal of Draft Master Use Permit (MUP) Language At the November 11, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, Chair Stolloff and Vice Chair Pollack directed staff to draft Master Use Permit (MUP) language based on their memo regarding West Berkeley zoning language. The draft MUP language is the result of two months of work by Policy and Current Planning staff, as well as the Office of the City Attorney. The Office of Economic Development has been involved in the process as well, providing input and reviewing the document as it currently stands. Staff believes the current version provides a solid foundation to begin discussion. We also recognize that the document will be changed and refined as a result of our discussions. The release of the draft MUP language at this time will allow the Commission to consider the West Berkeley Draft EIR in the context of the MUP language. Zoning changes proposed by the West Berkeley Project will also promote change in West Berkeley, but to a much smaller degree than the MUP.

• Staff would like to identify several topics that need attention as work progresses: The existing City of Berkeley Zoning Ordinance includes a wide range of sections that may interact with the MUP. We will cross reference these sections as appropriate

• New terms, or terms lacking clear definition, may become part of the MUP language. These terms will be refined and brought to the Commission as necessary.

• Confusing and/or redundant terminology will be identified and rectified. • Additional internal conflicts (within the Zoning Ordinance) may develop as the draft language is

modified during the public process. Staff will identify and propose solutions to remedy conflicts that arise.

Attachment:

1. Draft Master Use Permit Language

West Berkeley Project: Master Use Permit Planning Commission Draft Language Item #11 v. 15 03/17/10 March 24, 2010

1 | P a g e

Chapter 23B.36 1 MASTER USE PERMITS 2

3 23B.36.010 Applicability 4 23B.36.020 Purposes 5 23B.36.030 Master Use Permit Application—Process 6 23B.36.040 Reserved 7 23B.36.050 Permissible Alterations of Development Standards and Permitted 8

Uses 9 23B.36.060

23B.36.070 Contents of Master use Permit 12

Master Use Permit excludes other alterations of development 10 standards 11

23B.36.080 Vesting 13 23B.36.090 Findings 14

15 16 23B.36.010 Applicability 17

A. The Master Use Permit (“MUP”) process may be used for any site that is: (i) 18

located in one or more of the MU-LI, MM, or M districts and consists of at least 19

4 contiguous acres in area under a single ownership (whether or not in a single 20

parcel); or (ii) a full city block that is predominantly located in one or more of 21

the MU-LI, MM, or M districts, regardless of ownership. An MUP site may 22

include property located in the C-W or M-UR district subject to the additional 23

regulations in Section 23B.36.050B. 24

B. The size or boundaries of a proposed MUP site consisting of a full city block 25

may be adjusted to exclude any area in an R district that would otherwise be 26

included without becoming ineligible for an MUP, if the Board determines that 27

such adjustment is minor and its inclusion will not be detrimental to the 28

remainder of the R district. The Zoning Officer may adopt regulations for the 29

efficient processing of requests for such determinations. Such regulations shall 30

provide for the appeal of Board determinations under this subdivision to the 31

City Council. For purposes of this Chapter, the MU-R District is not considered 32

a residential district 33

C. The City may not approve more than 6 MUPs during the 10 years immediately 34

following the effective date of this Chapter. Notwithstanding Section 35

23B.56.100, an MUP project shall secure a building permit within 24 months of 36

the project’s approval. Failure to do so may result in the lapse of the MUP, 37

pursuant to Section 23B.56, and that MUP may not be counted for purposes of 38

this section. 39 40


2 | P a g e

41 23B.36.020 Purposes 42 The purposes of this Chapter are to provide flexibility in zoning requirements for projects 43

in West Berkeley that are located on large sites in order to: 44

A. Facilitate the implementation of area plans, including the West Berkeley Plan; 45

B. Facilitate the reuse of large and multi-user sites which might otherwise prove 46

difficult to reuse; 47

C. Facilitate the development and reuse of large, multi-user sites as integrated 48

units, designed to produce an environment of stable and desirable character that 49

will benefit the occupants, the neighborhood, and the city as a whole; 50

D. Consolidate the review of the impacts of the development and reuse of large and 51

multi-user projects; 52

E. Improve Berkeley’s competitiveness in attracting, incubating, retaining and 53

growing businesses by allowing businesses to develop and commence operation 54

on a site quickly once overall development requirements have been established; 55

F. Attract and retain businesses, especially those engaged in diverse, 56

comparatively clean, and environmentally beneficial industrial activities; 57

G. Attract businesses in emerging sectors of the economy; 58

H. Retain and provide space for artists; 59

I. Reduce or mitigate circulation, access and parking problems by improving 60

transportation infrastructure, reducing vehicle use by employees and providing 61

adequate parking; 62

J. Expand the availability of and access to jobs and job training programs; and 63

K. Raise funds for programs and initiatives that further the goals and purposes of 64

the West Berkeley Area Plan. 65

66 23B.36.030 Master Use Permit Application—Process 67

A. MUP applications shall include all materials required by Section 23B.24.030, 68

except that they shall not be required to include architectural plans or drawings 69

for phases subsequent to the first phase(s). 70

B. Applications for Master Use Permits shall include a detailed phasing plan that 71

shows the nature, scale, general location and timing of all physical development, 72

including on- and off-site infrastructure, and locations of proposed uses. 73

C. Applications for Master Use Permits shall be subject to the provisions under 74

Chapter 23B.32, except that notice area required by 23B.32.020 shall be 75

expanded to five hundred (500) feet of the subject property and notice of public 76

hearing shall be posted and mailed 30 days in advance. 77 78 23B.36.040 Reserved 79


3 | P a g e

80 23B.36.050 Permissible Alterations of Development Standards and Permitted 81

Uses 82

A. An applicant for a Master Use Permit may request, and the Board may approve, 83

the following deviations from the lot development standards and permissible uses 84

set forth in the underlying applicable zoning district regulations: 85

1. Parking Requirements: full or partial reduction of off-street parking 86

requirements; 87

2. Height Limitations: increases in permitted maximum height up to 75 feet; 88

3. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Restrictions: increases in permitted maximum FAR of 89

up three; 90

4. Setbacks: reduced setbacks from residential uses; 91

5. Spacing Requirements: use separation standards may be reduced; 92

6. Uses: any use identified in Chapters 23E.72, 23E.76 or 23E.80 may be 93

permitted on a Master Use Permit site without regard to the district 94

boundaries subject to the thresholds and permit requirements which shall be 95

established in the Master Use Permit; 96

7. The replacement of Manufacturing, Warehouse, Wholesale, or Material-97

Recovery activities with Other Industrial uses permitted in any of the zoning 98

districts in which the subject property is located. 99

B. To the extent that any MUP site includes property in the C-W or MU-R districts, 100

uses permitted only in the C-W or MU-R districts may be located anywhere on 101

the MUP site, but the amounts of land and building square feet devoted to those 102

uses shall not exceed the amounts that would have been permitted on the area 103

within the C-W or MU-R district(s), as applicable. 104

C. The amounts of land and building square feet devoted to those uses shall not 105

exceed the amounts that would have been permitted on the area within the C-W 106

or MU-R district(s), as applicable. 107

D. The Gross Floor Area allocated for each use may vary from that set forth in the 108

Master Use Permit by up to ten percent (10%) with a Zoning Certificate, as long 109

as the new use allocations meet all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 110

Variations of more than ten percent (10%) but less than twenty-five percent 111

(25%) from the stated Gross Floor Area for any use may be authorized by the 112

Zoning Officer; variations of more than twenty-five percent (25%) may be 113

authorized by the Board. Any such change is still subject to the requirements set 114

forth in the MUP and to the finding required by Section 23B.32.040. 115

E. Notwithstanding the conversion requirements applicable in the underlying 116

districts within an approved MUP, spaces within an MUP site may be divided, 117

aggregated and/or converted in any manner, as a matter of right as long as such 118

http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/berkeley/html/Berkeley23B/Berkeley23B32/Berkeley23B32040.html#23B.32.040


4 | P a g e

division, aggregation or conversion is consistent with the square footage 119

limitations set forth in the MUP. 120

121

23B.36.060 Master Use Permit excludes other alterations of development 122

standards 123

The flexibility provided under this Chapter to alter development standards is exclusive 124

and supersedes all other provisions of this Title except Section 23B.44.050 under which 125

development standards may be altered. 126

127

23B.36.070 Contents of Master Use Permit 128

In addition to the information and requirements that are normally contained in a Use 129

Permit, as well as any specific additional conditions or requirements the Board may 130

impose, a Master Use Permit shall include the number of square feet of buildings and 131

land to be used for Industrial (Manufacturing, Wholesaling and warehousing), Office 132

(exclusive of offices ancillary to other uses), Commercial (Retail and Personal service), 133

Live/Work Units and Residential Uses and a detailed phasing plan as described in 134

Section 23B.36.030.A. 135

136

23B.36.080 Vesting 137

A. An MUP shall be deemed to have been exercised in its entirety upon the 138

substantial completion of the first phase thereof. Thereafter, it shall be 139

considered to be vested in its entirety. 140

B. Failure to substantially comply with the detailed phasing plan contained in the 141

MUP shall be a violation of the MUP and subject to revocation or modification per 142

Chapter 23B.60. 143

144

23B.36.090 Findings 145

A. In order to approve a MUP, the Board must make the following findings: 146

1. The finding required by Section 23B.32.040; and 147

2. That the proposed project will be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 148

B. For alterations of development standards under Section 23B.36.050.A, the Board 149

must find that the proposed project would confer benefits that affirmatively 150

advance the purposes of this Chapter and the goals and policies of the 151

applicable Area Plan or, if there is no applicable Area Plan, the General Plan, 152

beyond what would be achieved by a project that did not receive any variations 153

under that Section. 154

C. For alterations of Permitted Uses under Section 23B.36.050.A.6, the Board must 155

find that the proposed project will maintain the overall industrial nature of the 156

West Berkeley Area and the MUP site. 157



5 | P a g e

D. For variations in the gross floor area allocated for specific uses under subdivision 158 C of Section 23B.36.050, the Zoning Officer or Board must make the following 159 findings: 160 1. The finding required by Section 23B.32.040; and 161 2. That any proposed variation is consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 162


Planning Department

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420

DATE: March 18, 2010 TO: Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENDeclaration (ND) for the proposed available for public review and comment and this notice is provided pursuant to Section 21092 of the State Public Resources Code PUBLIC REVIEW & COMMENT PERIOD on the Negative DEnvironmental Checklist: March

PROJECT LOCATION: The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element Update establishes housing policies and programs citywide. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Housing Element, an element of the Berkeley Plan, is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the Berkeley community. The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element covers the planning period extending to from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014 and is an update of the 2002 Berkeley Housing Element, which was an update of the 1990 Housing Element. In the current Element, most of the housing goals and policies have remaining consistent with those established in previous Housing Elements.

The purpose of the Housing Element is to:

• Determine the existing and projected housing needs of Berkeley residents, including special needs populations;

• Identify adequate capacity via the site inventory process to demonstrate availability of land for the development of accommodate Berkeley’s share of regional need;

• Analyze constraints on housing production;• Establish goals and policies that guide decision

needs, and • Describe programs that will implement the

The Draft 2009 Berkeley Housing Element is published online on the Housing Element page of the City's website on the Internet at: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/housi

Hard copies of the Housing Service Center for $10.00.

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420E-mail: [email protected]

Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Berkeley has prepared a ) for the proposed 2009 Berkeley Housing Element Update

available for public review and comment and this notice is provided pursuant to Section 21092 of the State Public Resources Code and 15072 of the CEQA guidelines

PUBLIC REVIEW & COMMENT PERIOD on the Negative Declaration and March 22 to April 20, 2010.

The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element Update establishes housing policies and programs citywide.

The Housing Element, an element of the Berkeley Plan, is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the Berkeley community. The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element covers the planning period extending to from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014 and is

n update of the 2002 Berkeley Housing Element, which was an update of the 1990 Housing Element. In the current Element, most of the housing goals and policies have remaining consistent with those established in previous Housing Elements.

Housing Element is to:

Determine the existing and projected housing needs of Berkeley residents, including special needs populations; Identify adequate capacity via the site inventory process to demonstrate availability of land for the development of housing for various income levels to accommodate Berkeley’s share of regional need; Analyze constraints on housing production; Establish goals and policies that guide decision-making to address housing

Describe programs that will implement the City’s housing objectives.

The Draft 2009 Berkeley Housing Element is published online on the Housing Element page of the City's website on the Internet at: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/housingelement

Housing Element are available at the Zoning Counter


that the City of Berkeley has prepared a Negative Berkeley Housing Element Update. The ND is

available for public review and comment and this notice is provided pursuant to Section and 15072 of the CEQA guidelines.

eclaration and

The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element Update establishes

The Housing Element, an element of the Berkeley General Plan, is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the Berkeley community. The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element covers the planning period extending to from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014 and is

n update of the 2002 Berkeley Housing Element, which was an update of the 1990 Housing Element. In the current Element, most of the housing goals and policies have remaining consistent with those established in previous Housing Elements.

Determine the existing and projected housing needs of Berkeley residents,

Identify adequate capacity via the site inventory process to demonstrate housing for various income levels to

making to address housing

City’s housing objectives.

The Draft 2009 Berkeley Housing Element is published online on the Housing Element

Element are available at the Zoning Counter - Permit

2009 Berkeley Housing Element Notice of Intent to Adopt Page 2 of 2 March 18, 2010

LOCATIONS WHERE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW: Main Library, Reference Desk Permit Service Center–Zoning Counter 2090 Kittredge Street Planning and Development Department 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA West Berkeley Library 1125 University Avenue

• A link to the ND is on the Housing Element page of the City's website on the Internet at: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/housingelement

• Hard copies of the ND are available from the Berkeley Planning Department. Please call 981-7410 to request a copy.

WRITTEN COMMENTS: Written comments concerning this project should be directed to: Jordan Harrison, Associate Planner Planning and Development Department 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-7416 [email protected]


1. Project Title: City of Berkeley 2009 Housing Element Update

2. Description of Project: The Housing Element, an element of the Berkeley General Plan, is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the Berkeley community. The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element covers the planning period extending to from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014 and is an update of the 2002 Berkeley Housing Element, which was an update of the 1990 Housing Element. In the proposed 2009 Housing Element, most of the housing goals and policies have remaining consistent with thos

3. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Contact: Wendy Cosin, Deputy Planning Director

4. Project Location: City of Berke

5. Findings: Based on the Environmental Initial Study, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, it is the finding of the City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department that the above described projects will not result in any sienvironmental impacts. The proposed 2009 Housing Element does not change or increase the current General Plan land use designations, intensity of use, or types of uses of sites within the City of Berkeley. There are no specific development projecidentified and there are no physical effects directly or indirectly related to the project.

_____________________________ _________________Wendy Cosin, Deputy Planning Director

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420E-mail: [email protected]

City of Berkeley 2009 Housing Element Update

The Housing Element, an element of the Berkeley General Plan, is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the Berkeley community. The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element covers the planning period

o from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014 and is an update of the 2002 Berkeley Housing Element, which was an update of the 1990 Housing Element. In the

Element, most of the housing goals and policies have remaining consistent with those established in previous Housing Elements.

3. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Planning and Development Department

Contact: Wendy Cosin, Deputy Planning Director

City of Berkeley, citywide

Based on the Environmental Initial Study, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, it is the finding of the City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department that the above described projects will not result in any significant environmental impacts. The proposed 2009 Housing Element does not change or increase the current General Plan land use designations, intensity of use, or types of uses of sites within the City of Berkeley. There are no specific development projecidentified and there are no physical effects directly or indirectly related to the project.

_____________________________ _________________Planning Director Date


The Housing Element, an element of the Berkeley General Plan, is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the Berkeley community. The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element covers the planning period

o from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014 and is an update of the 2002 Berkeley Housing Element, which was an update of the 1990 Housing Element. In the

Element, most of the housing goals and policies have e established in previous Housing Elements.

Based on the Environmental Initial Study, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, it is the finding of the City of Berkeley Planning and Development

gnificant environmental impacts. The proposed 2009 Housing Element does not change or increase the current General Plan land use designations, intensity of use, or types of uses of sites within the City of Berkeley. There are no specific development projects identified and there are no physical effects directly or indirectly related to the project.

_____________________________ _________________ Date

1. Project Title: City of Berkeley 2009 Housing Element Update

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:Jordan Harrison, Associate Planner,

4. Project Location: City of Berkeley

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704

6. General Plan Designation: All

7. Zoning: All

8. Description of Project: The Housing Element, an element of the Berkeley General Plan, is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the Berkeley community. The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element extending to from January 1, 2009 Housing Element, which was an update of the 1990 Housing ElementHousing Element, most of the housing goals and policies have remaining consistent with those established in previous Housi


• Determine the existing and projected housing needs of Berkeley residentsspecial needs populations;

• Identify adequate capacity via the site inventory process to land for the development of housing for various income levels to accommodate Berkeley’s share of regional need;

• Analyze constraints on housing production;

of Berkeley 2009 Housing Element Update

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:


3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jordan Harrison, Associate Planner, 510-981-7410

City of Berkeley, citywide

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:


All

of the Berkeley General Plan, is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the Berkeley community. The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element covers the planning period

to June 30, 2014 and is an update of the 2002 Berkeley which was an update of the 1990 Housing Element. In the proposed 2009

lement, most of the housing goals and policies have remaining consistent with those established in previous Housing Elements.


Determine the existing and projected housing needs of Berkeley residents

via the site inventory process to demonstrate availability the development of housing for various income levels to accommodate

Berkeley’s share of regional need; nstraints on housing production;

of the Berkeley General Plan, is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the

the planning period 30, 2014 and is an update of the 2002 Berkeley

proposed 2009 lement, most of the housing goals and policies have remaining consistent with

Determine the existing and projected housing needs of Berkeley residents, including

demonstrate availability of the development of housing for various income levels to accommodate

C i t y o f B e r k e l e y

E N V I R O N M E N T A L I N I T I A L S T U D Y

2

• Establish goals and policies that guide decision-making to address housing needs, and

• Describe programs that will implement the City’s housing objectives.

Housing Element Objectives

The 10 Objectives of the 2009 Berkeley Housing Element are as follows. The Objectives are similar to the goals of the 2002 and 1990 Housing Elements. They are supported by policies and action steps to help achieve the Objectives:

1. Housing Affordability

Berkeley residents should have access to quality housing at a range of prices and rents. Housing is least affordable for people at the lowest income levels, and City resources should focus on this area of need.

2. Maintenance of Existing Housing

Existing housing should be maintained and improved. Improvements that will prepare buildings for a major seismic event should be encouraged.

3. Expansion of the Housing Supply

New housing should be developed to expand housing opportunities in Berkeley to meet the needs of all income groups.

4. Special Needs Housing and Homelessness Prevention

Berkeley should expand the supply of housing for special needs groups, including housing affordable to households and individuals with extremely low incomes.

5. Relationship with Other Institutions

The City should continue working with the Berkeley Housing Authority and the University of California to address affordable housing needs.

6. Fair and Accessible Housing

The City should continue to enforce fair housing laws and encourage housing that is universally accessible.

7. Public Participation

Berkeley should continue to improve the role of neighborhood residents and community organizations in housing and community development decision-making.

8. Energy Efficiency



3

The City should promote energy efficiency in new and existing residential buildings in order to improve building comfort and safety, reduce energy costs, provide quality housing, and reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

9. Adequate Sites

Berkeley should retain adequate housing opportunity sites to meet its future housing needs.

10. Governmental Constraints

Berkeley should identify and mitigate barriers to the construction of new housing of all types.

Opportunities for Residential Development and Expansion of the Housing Supply

The 2009 Housing Element includes policies that promote expansion of housing by encouraging the City to meet its share of regional housing need through development near transit, identifying and removing obstacles to the development of housing units, and supporting density bonuses in exchange for below market rate units. The policies call for development to be focused on transit corridors, near transit stations and consistent with zoning and applicable area plans. The Element does not propose any specific development projects but rather identifies areas where anticipated growth should occur in order to meet City and regional goals.

The Element also includes a number of policies to promote and encourage certain types of housing development, including affordable housing, housing suitable for families, housing suitable for seniors, accessible housing, special needs housing, and housing for students, staff and faculty of the University of California. These policies do not in and of themselves result in housing production but rather encourage housing to meet the needs of Berkeley residents.

Housing Element law requires each city and county to accommodate its “fair share” of projected housing need over the Element planning period. Cities and counties must demonstrate that adequate sites are available to accommodate this need, and that the jurisdiction allows for development of a variety of housing types. This housing need requirement is known as the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) and apportions to each jurisdiction its portion of the Bay Area’s projected need. The projected growth is determined by the regional Council of Governments, in this case the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Based on this process, Berkeley needs to demonstrate capacity for 2,431 units of various income levels through 2014. Berkeley is not required to develop the units, but rather, show through analysis of available land and existing regulations that 2,431 units could be built in Berkeley.

The City has identified a number of underutilized and vacant sites that, under existing General Plan designations and zoning, together have the potential for over 3,000 additional units. Chapter 3 and Appendix A of the 2009 Berkeley Housing Element discuss the City’s RHNA and describe these “opportunity sites” [Ref. 8]. Thus, Berkeley has the capacity to accommodate the City’s fair share of housing needs with current zoning regulations, which



4

are consistent with the 2002 General Plan. Accordingly, the 2009 Housing Element does not propose any changes to land use regulations.

The General Plan EIR prepared in 2001 for the Berkeley General Plan projected the population of Berkeley to grow to 116,359 in 2020. The RHNA process uses January 1, 2007 population and housing data as the baseline for growth projections, and units approved or built since that date count as “credit” toward the RHNA. The City has approved building permits for 753 units since that date; therefore, the remaining capacity needed to accommodate the City’s RHNA is for 1,678 new units by 2014.

The estimated Berkeley population as of January 1, 2009 was 107,178. Assuming construction of all of the remaining 1,678 RHNA units, the population growth that would result is estimated to be 3,536 additional people.1 The additional 3,536 people would bring the population up to 110,714 by 2014, over 5,000 people fewer than the 2020 projected population studied in the General Plan EIR (“GP EIR”). Therefore, the impacts associated with growth anticipated in the City’s current RHNA were previously studied and addressed in the GP EIR. Assuming continued growth at the rate projected in the current RHNA, 731 people per year, would result in an additional 4,386 people or 115,100 total by 2020.2 This is 1,259 fewer people than projected in the GP EIR.

However, as stated above, the City does not have to build the RHNA projected housing units, only to demonstrate adequate capacity. Recent growth projections prepared by ABAG expect a population of 109,400 by 2015 and 111,900 by 2020, well under the growth anticipated in the GP EIR.3 Given the recent downturn in the real estate market, the City considers these growth rates more realistic than the growth anticipated in the RHNA.

9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:

The City of Berkeley is mostly built-out with structures dating from the late 19th century. Most new development that occurs in the City is re-use of previously developed property. The current population of Berkeley, as of January 1, 2009, is 107,178 according to the California Department of Finance. The University of California is the dominant institution in Berkeley but is not subject to the City’s land use authority.

10. Public agencies whose approval is required: Berkeley Planning Commission (recommend adoption of 2009-2014 Housing Element by City Council)

Berkeley City Council (adoption of Negative Declaration; adoption of 2009-2014 Housing Element as an amendment to the 2002 Berkeley General Plan) 1 This is based on the applying the housing vacancy rate of 4.2 to the projected RHNA units to identify the number of new households, and multiplying by the household size of 2.2 persons per household. Vacancy rate and household size are based on California Department of Finance Table E-5a (2008)

2 The RHNA projected 2,431 units, estimated to be 5,123 people over seven years, from 2007-2014, or 731 people per year.

3 ABAG Projections 2009



5

The Housing Element itself requires certification by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources Geology /Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazardous Materials

Hydrology / Water Quality

Mineral Resources Noise Land Use / Planning

Public Services Recreation Population / Housing

Utilities / Service Systems

Mandatory Findings of Significance

Transportation/Traffic



6

DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

_____________________________ _________________ Wendy Cosin, Deputy Planning Director Date

Initial Study prepared by:

Jordan Harrison Berkeley Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley CA 94704



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

7

Check List4 I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

The Housing Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development projects. While the Housing Element includes a list of sites suitable for future housing development, the Element does not propose any development for those sites. It is possible that any individual housing development could be of sufficient height and mass to interrupt or change views within the City. This would be dependent on the particular location and design of the new buildings, and it would be speculative to conclude the new structures would result in significant visual impacts. Further, no land use changes are proposed in the Housing Element. The impacts of the currently zoned densities and capacities have been previously analyzed in the General Plan DEIR, which determined that implementation of City of Berkeley General Plan policies would result in less than significant visual impacts. Future development on sites indentified in the Element as suitable for housing development will be consistent with the urban design policies of the General Plan and area plans (such as the Downtown Plan and Southside Plan) and subject the City’s design review policies [Ref 1,4-8]. Therefore, no further analysis of this environmental issue is necessary. In addition, there are no state scenic highways within the City of Berkeley, therefore the project will have no effect on a scenic highway. [Ref. 3]

4 The headers of column check boxes are defined as follows: PSI : Potentially Significant Impact, <SwM : Less Than Significant With Mitigation, LS : Less Than Significant Impact, : No Impact



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

8

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND FOREST RESOURCES:

Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for , or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoning Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51105(g))?

D) Result in the los off Forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use?

E) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use?

According to the 2002 Berkeley General Plan there are no significant agricultural or timberland resources in Berkeley. None are shown in that document’s Existing Land Use map or the Land Use Diagram and the City does not have any zoning districts that specify agricultural uses. [Ref 1, 7] Further, the California Employment Development Department estimates there are only 35 employees in the Berkeley in the fields of agriculture, forestry, fishing or hunting. The Association of Bay Area Governments projects only 40 employees in these fields through 2035. Because there are no significant agricultural resources in the City the 2009 Housing Element will not cause impacts to such resources.

III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

The City of Berkeley is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which monitors state and federal air quality standards and develops plans for attainment of those standards. Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

9

Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants at which exposure does not normally result in the specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The major criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide (NOx) sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM). According to the BAAQMD, a project could have a significant air quality impact if it is inconsistent with an adopted clean air plan (CAP). To be consistent with adopted CAPs, the local plan should be consistent with the population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) assumptions used in the CAP. The BAAQMD adopted the 2005 Ozone Strategy (an update to the 1991 CAP) as a road map to how the Bay Area will achieve compliance with state one-hour air quality standard for ozone. The 2005 Ozone Strategy utilized the most recent projections developed by ABAG (i.e. Projections 2003). These projections were developed using the then current land use designations developed by cities and counties through the General Plan process. The Berkeley General Plan Land Use Element was updated in 2001, and so the CAP includes the General Plan land use and growth projections. The 2009 Housing Element Update does not change the land use designations or zoned densities of the General Plan. Therefore, the growth expectations of the 2005 Ozone Strategy are consistent with the expectations of the 2009 Housing Element Update.

The Bay Area is designated nonattainment for new (as of 2006) 24-hour PM2.5 standards. A plan for the new national standard is currently being prepared by CARB, and must be submitted to the U.S. EPA by April 2012. The new plan will be based on recent ABAG population projections, which are consistent with the current General Plan land use designation and zoned densities and the housing capacity identified in the 2009 Berkeley Housing Element. Therefore, the growth anticipated in the 2009 Housing Element is consistent with projections in adopted and pending clean air plans, a less-than-significant impact.

With regard to the potential to contribute to an air quality violation or a cumulatively considerable increase in a criteria pollutant, adoption of the 2009 Berkeley Housing Element would result in less-than-significant impacts because anticipated growth is consistent with the applicable clean air plans and it does not provide for additional development beyond that described in the certified General Plan EIR. Implementation of the Housing Element would not further the increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is nonattainment, nor does it increase the severity of previously identified and analyzed potential impacts.

In addition, the Berkeley General Plan contained numerous transportation control measures (TCM) to reduce emissions from transportation sources. These measures, identified in the Berkeley Draft General Plan EIR (Table IV.L-5), were found to constitute implementation of the Transportation Control Measures in the air district’s 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy.

Further, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan with specific implementing programs to reduce emissions resulting from vehicle miles traveled and indoor building use, such as those promoting the use of green building technologies, alternative modes of transportation, and the location of



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

10

new development near transit. The Housing Element is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan, thus the cumulative effect of the Housing Element on attainment status would be positive.

In sum, the Element would not encourage housing growth beyond the goals, policies and programs established in the General Plan and studied in the 2001 Draft General Plan EIR. No land use changes or rezoning are required for the City to meet its 2007-2014 regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for regional growth. The growth projected in the General Plan is consistent with the population growth assumptions in the applicable air district clean air plans. No new major sources of air pollution or new activities capable of violating the BAAQMD standards would occur under the proposed Housing Element that have not been previously identified in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element does not provide for additional development beyond that approved by the General Plan EIR. Therefore, air quality impacts related to conformance with air quality plans, air quality standards and criteria pollutants are considered less-than-significant.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

In addition to PM2.5, addressed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern due to impacts on human health. There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Cars and trucks release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most important, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulate, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases. In Berkeley, there are a limited number of existing industries that potentially create air pollution (such as Pacific Steel Casting, Berkeley Forge and Tool, and Berkeley Asphalt). The combination of truck traffic (especially traffic on Interstate 80), Union Pacific railroad traffic and industrial sources could present potentially significant exposure to hazardous pollutants for sensitive receptors in West Berkeley.

The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, school playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The Housing Element anticipates an increase of approximately 2,431 units for the City’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) through 2014. Population growth is anticipated to be incremental and would occur gradually as individual projects are approved by the City. Potential for air quality impacts associated with these additional units will be analyzed as specific development projects are reviewed by the City.

As part of the CARB’s Community Health Program, the CARB has developed an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (Handbook) which is intended to serve as a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision-making process. This handbook does serves as a guide for determining the appropriateness of sensitive receptors, such as residential uses, when proposed to be located within 500 feet of a known source of air pollutants, such as Interstate 80 or the Union Pacific railroad. In instances where residential development is proposed within such an area, consistent with the CARB handbood and BAAQMD guidelines, an air quality analysis will be prepared to



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

11

document the specific impact at that location and provide required mitigation measures or recommended impact reduction measures as determined in the analysis.

The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development. No land use changes or rezoning are proposed in the Housing Element. Development on opportunity sites identified in the Element is subject to the current land use regulations; adoption of the Housing Element does not change the development potential in West Berkeley or elsewhere in the City. Therefore, the Housing Element does not introduce new sensitive receptors to existing sources of hazardous air contaminants. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant impact.

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Projects with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. Land uses commonly considered to be potential sources of odorous emissions include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, food processing facilities, chemical manufacturing plants, paint coating operations, and agricultural feed lots and dairies.

The Housing Element encourages both mixed use development (residential and commercial) and residential development. Potential odor impacts on residential development could occur near odor generating commercial uses. Potential odor impacts will be examined on a case by case basis as specific sites are proposed for residential development or mixed use development with a residential component.

The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development. The Element encourages housing production and identifies specific sites suitable for housing development. Residential development is not associated with the creation of objectionable odors; therefore, adoption of the Element would not create new objectionable odors. Development on opportunity sites identified in the Element is subject to the current land use regulations; adoption of the Housing Element does not change the development potential in the City. Therefore, the Element does not create the potential to introduce new sensitive receptors to existing sources of objectionable odors. Adoption of the Element would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to objectionable odors.



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

12

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The 2009 Housing Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development. The Housing Element identifies sites suitable for development of new housing, the majority of which are located within the urbanized areas of the City, where no candidate, sensitive or special status species of plant or animal have been identified as inhabiting or potentially inhabiting. To the degree species have been identified, they are in the wildland areas on the eastern edges of the City, which are mostly out of the jurisdiction of the City. [Ref. 4, City of Berkeley General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, pages 231-232.] Future development on sites identified in the Housing Element within the areas with potential biological resources will be subject to individual discretionary and environmental review, which would identify and address any potential site-specific impacts.

The General Plan EIR found that no federally protected wetlands, wildlife movement corridor or migration corridor would be impacted. There are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in Berkeley or in adjacent communities that could be affected.



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

13

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ¤15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ¤15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

The 2009 Berkeley Housing Element has identified sites with capacity for additional residential or mixed-use development throughout the City. The majority of the sites are located within developed areas, and many are currently developed with structures. None of the sites have existing Berkeley Landmarks or Structures of Merit. The Element is consistent with the existing policies of the General Plan and would not have any impacts beyond those already fully assessed in the General Plan EIR. [Ref 1 and 4] Any future development on sites identified in the Housing Element will be subject to individual environmental review, which would identify and address any potential site-specific impacts to cultural resources. Additionally, future development proposals and demolitions of non-residential buildings over 40 years old will be referred to the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission for consideration as historical resources per the Berkeley zoning ordinance.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

The entire Bay Area region is subject to geologic hazards due to strong seismic activity. The Hayward fault traverses the City at the base of the Berkeley hills. Areas of the City are subject to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. The Housing Element identifies sites throughout the City that have potential for new housing or mixed-use development, thus some of those sites could be vulnerable to seismic hazards. However, the 2009 Housing Element is a policy-level document and does not propose any specific development. All future development would be subject to site-specific review, which would identify any seismic-related hazards. Any needed mitigation measures or conditions of approval will be identified at that time,



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

14

including compliance with the General Plan Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element and the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, adoption of the Housing Element will not result in significant impacts related to seismic hazards.

In addition, the Housing Element includes policies and programs for rehabilitation of existing structures that are vulnerable to seismic hazards. These programs improve the safety of soft-story and unreinforced masonry buildings by requiring seismic upgrades. The City also offers a partial fee rebate to homeowners who conduct seismic upgrades on their property. These programs assure improved safety for existing Berkeley residents.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

The 2009 Housing Element is a policy-level document and does not propose and specific development. All future development is subject to individual project review through which any site-specific soil-related impacts would be identified and addressed.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS-- Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

The BAAQMD recently established thresholds of significance for impacts from GHG emissions resulting from plan-level projects. According to the December 2009 CEQA guidelines, a long-range plan, such as a housing element, would be assumed to have a less-than-significant impact related to GHG emissions if the Lead Agency has adopted a qualified Climate Action Plan that is referenced and/or integrated within the long-range plan.

In June 2009 the City of Berkeley adopted a Climate Action Plan with specific implementing programs to reduce emissions resulting from vehicle miles traveled and indoor building use, such as those promoting the use of green building technologies, alternative modes of transportation, and the location of new development near transit. The 2009 Housing Element is consistent with the goals and policies of the Berkeley Climate Action Plan. Policy H-12 encourages construction of new housing near transit and incorporates actions to encourage housing development that promotes alternative modes of transit, consistent with the CAP. Additionally, the discussion of Energy Conservation Opportunities and Programs in Chapter 6 of the Element includes



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

15

implementation of the CAP as one of the implementation steps for the Housing Element energy conservation program.

The Berkeley CAP is considered a qualified CAP under the BAAQMD guidelines for the following reasons:

• The CAP includes a GHG inventory for the current year and the forecast year of 2020, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the CAP. Appendix E includes emission scenario projections over five year increments from 2000 through 2030.

• The CAP sets a target for 2020 that is at least 15 percent below 2008 levels. As discussed in Chapter 2, the CAP 2020 target is for emissions reduction to 30 percent below 2020 “business as usual levels,” or 33 percent below 2000 levels, which is more than 15 percent below 2008 levels.

• The CAP identified feasible reduction measure to achieve the 2020 reduction goals, as discussed in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 and listed in Appendix A.

• The CAP incorporates the reduction measures of AB 32 , including Pavley (CAP Ch. 3), Renewable Portfolio Standard (CAP Ch. 4), and regional transportation-related targets. The interface between these and other state level actions is described in Chapter 1.

• The CAP quantifies the effectiveness of the reduction measures by sector (transportation & land use, building energy use) as detailed in appendices E and F. A simple chart of the reduction contributions by sector is also provided in the Executive Summary.

• The CAP identifies implementation steps and financing mechanisms to achieve the 2020 emission reduction goal in Chapter 8 and Appendix A.

• The CAP includes procedures for annual monitoring and updating the GHG inventory and reduction measures in Chapter 8.

• The CAP identifies responsible parties and a schedule for implementation in Appendix A.

• An Initial Study/Negative Declaration was adopted on the CAP in June 2009.

Therefore, adoption of the 2009 Berkeley Housing Element would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to GHG emissions because the Element is consistent with the Berkeley CAP, a qualified climate action plan under BAAQMD guidelines.



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

16

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The 2009 Housing Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development. Adoption of the Element would not result in the transport, use, disposal, emission or accidental release of hazardous materials. While development of housing or mixed-use buildings consistent with the Element could be located a site contaminated with hazardous materials, such development would be subject to site-specific environmental review and impact mitigation. The closest airport is Oakland International which is approximately 7.5 miles from Berkeley and there are no private airstrips in the City. [Ref 2.]

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Implementation of the 2009 Housing Element would not interfere with the adopted emergency response plan.

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

The 2009 Housing Element identifies sites throughout the City where new residential development could occur. The majority of the units would be located in the Downtown and along major transit corridors, which are not adjacent to wildlands. However, some of the Element opportunity sites are located in the hillside areas near wildlands. Such development would be subject to site-specific review, which would identify and mitigate any potential impacts from wildland fires. Additionally, the 2009 Housing Element does not propose land use changes or rezoning. To the degree it encourages new development subject to wildland fire risk, it is



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

17

consistent with the existing policies of the General Plan, including the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element, and should not have any impacts beyond those already fully assessed in the General Plan EIR.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

The 2009 Housing Element is a policy-level document that does not propose any specific development projects; therefore, adoption of the Element would not result in a violation of water quality standards or discharge requirements. To the degree it encourages new development it is consistent with the existing policies of the General Plan and should not have any impacts beyond those already fully assessed in the General Plan EIR. [Ref 4, pages 213 - 238] Projects developed consistent with the 2009 Housing Element would be subject to individual project review and all state, regional and local water quality discharge requirements.

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Berkeley is a largely built out City and the infill development identified in the 2009 Housing Element would not interfere with groundwater recharge. The City's water is not supplied locally and so local development has no impact on wells or other sources of local water. [Ref 4]

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Berkeley is a largely built out City and the infill development identified in the 2009 Housing Element would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding. [Ref 4] Projects developed consistent with the 2009 Housing Element would be subject to individual environmental review which would address potential site-specific drainage impacts.

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

See response to IX c).



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

18

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Berkeley is a largely built out City and the infill development identified in the 2009 Housing Element would not result in substantial increase in runoff or polluted runoff. [Ref 4 page 213 - 238]

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

See above IX c) and e).

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

The 2009 Housing Element identifies sites throughout the City where new residential development could occur. The majority of the units would be located in the Downtown and along major transit corridors, which are not adjacent to know areas of flood hazard. However, some of the Element opportunity sites could be located in areas subject to flood risk. Such development would be subject to site-specific review with would identify and mitigate any potential impacts from flooding. To the degree it encourages new development subject to flood risk, it is consistent with the existing policies of the General Plan and should not have any impacts beyond those already fully assessed in the General Plan EIR.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

See above IX c), e) and g).

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

See above IX c), e) and g).

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

The 2009 Housing Element is a policy-level document that does not propose any specific development projects. Implementation of the Element would not result in increased level of risk for inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

The 2009 Housing Element is a policy-level document that does not propose any specific development projects. Implementation of the Element would not divide an established community.



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

19

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Adoption of the 2009 Housing Element would not conflict with any of the City of Berkeley land use plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating effects that could result in adverse physical changes in the environment. The objectives, policies, actions, and programs of the 2009 Housing Element are consistent with other City policies, particularly the current Housing Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

The 2009 Housing Element includes a number of policies to promote and encourage certain types of housing development, including affordable housing, housing suitable for families, housing suitable for seniors, accessible housing, special needs housing, and housing for students, staff and faculty of the University of California. The policies do not in and of themselves result in housing production but rather encourage development of housing to meet the needs of Berkeley residents in a manner that is consistent with the 2002 Berkeley General Plan.

The 2009 Housing Element also includes policies that promote expansion of housing by encouraging the City to meet its share of regional housing need through development near transit, identifying and removing obstacles to the development of housing units, and supporting density bonuses in exchange for below market rate units. The policies call for development to be focused on transit corridors or near transit stations and consistent with zoning and applicable area plans. The Element does not propose any specific development projects but rather identifies areas where anticipated growth should occur in order to meet City and regional goals. As discussed in the Element in Appendix A, the City has adequate capacity under existing zoning regulations to accommodate the City’s 2009-2014 Regional Housing Needs Assessment and therefore no zoning changes are required to meet the City’s regional housing needs.

The 2009 Housing Element does not propose land use changes or rezoning that would conflict with the existing land use plans for the City. The 2009 Housing Element includes policies and programs that call for consideration of revisions to the zoning ordinance to improve the City’s ability to address specific housing needs, including:

1. Amend the zoning ordinance to allow for more opportunities for the development of emergency shelters consistent with new requirements of state legislation (SB 2);

2. Consider revisions to the inclusionary ordinance and density bonus program to promote affordable housing production;

3. Consider revisions to the regulation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to remove constraints and promote second units; and

4. Consider revisions to controls on the demolition or conversion of certain types of units.



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

20

These proposed changes are expected to be consistent with the existing housing and land use goals and policies of the General Plan and existing City programs for the following reasons:

1. The amendments related to emergency shelters will allow the City to better serve the homeless population and low income persons and households, which is consistent with the policies of the current Housing Element and General Plan and current housing programs offered by the City, and does not introduce a new land use in the City. There are currently emergency shelters in Berkeley and shelters are an allowed use in the Berkeley zoning ordinance. Changing the level of discretion applicable to new emergency shelters, an allowable land use, would not have the potential to introduce new environmental effects.

2. Amendments related to the inclusionary ordinance and density bonus program will enable the City to continue to provide permanently affordable housing, which is consistent with goals and policies in the current General Plan Housing Element and Land use Element. The Berkeley zoning ordinance currently includes provisions for density bonus. Revisions to the current density bonus regulations would not introduce a new housing-related program and would be consistent with State Density Bonus Law. Revisions to current density bonus regulations would be subject to separate environmental review depending on the scope of the proposed changes.

3. The zoning ordinance currently includes provisions for ADUs. The Element proposed consideration of changes intended to address obstacles to the implementation of the current ADU program. This is consistent with the goal of providing more housing through accessory units in the zoning ordinance, current General Plan Housing Element and Land Use Element.

4. Changes to the demolition ordinance would eliminate technical inconsistencies between different City codes in order to better implement the City’s affordable housing goals. The changes would not result in a new land use or substantial change to the regulation of existing land uses.

In sum, the proposed zoning ordinance revisions would modify existing City programs for land uses that are currently present in the City and are supported by existing policies in the General Plan.The potential zoning changes would not result in conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effect. In addition, the objectives and policies of the 2009 Housing Element are consistent with the policies of other City planning documents, including the Climate Action Plan, the EveryOne Home Plan, the most recent Consolidated Plan, and specific area plans.

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in Berkeley. [Ref 1 and 4]



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

21

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

All future housing development activity would take place in areas designated for residential and mixed land uses consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance. There are no mineral resource activities that would be altered or displaced by adoption of the Housing Element.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

See above XI, a).

XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

The 2009 Housing Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development. The infill transit-oriented development anticipated in the 2009 Housing Element is consistent with the City's General Plan and identifies the majority of development in the Downtown and along major commercial corridors. Implementation of the Element would not have additional noise impacts beyond those assessed in the General Plan EIR. [Ref 4 pages 261- 283] Development on opportunity sites identified in the Element is subject to the current land use regulations; adoption of the Housing Element does not change the development potential in the City. Therefore, it does not introduce new residents to existing sources of noise. Ambient noise levels in future housing developments would be similar to noise levels found in existing residential uses. Future development would be subject to individual project review, which would identify and mitigate any site-specific noise related impacts. Further, all future projects would be to Chapter 13.40 of the BMC, which limits permissible noise levels including those emitted from equipment during construction.

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

See above XII, a).

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

See above XII, a).



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

22

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

See above XII, a).

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Comment to Items e) and f), the closest airport is Oakland International which is approximately 7.5 miles from Berkeley. [Ref. 2]

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

The 2009 Housing Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development. Therefore the Element would not directly induce population growth. Likewise, the Element would not indirectly induce population growth through infrastructure expansion because it does not propose any changes to existing infrastructure and the City is largely built-out with existing infrastructure for future growth already in place.

The Housing Element encourages new housing production and identifies specific sites suitable for new housing development. Development on opportunity sites identified in the Element is subject to the current land use regulations; adoption of the Housing Element does not change the development potential in the City. Therefore, it would not result in new population growth. As discussed in the project description above, population growth expected under the Element is consistent with growth anticipated in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR [Ref 4, page 55 - 67].

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The Element is intended to address housing issues that include ensuring the quality and affordability of the housing stock, ensuring that suitable housing is available for persons of all economic segments, and assisting individuals and families with special housing needs. The Element does not set forth or encourage any policies or programs that would directly or indirectly displace existing housing units or residents in the City.

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

See above XIII, a).



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

23

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

The 2009 Housing Element does not propose any specific development projects, but rather encourages future housing development and identifies sites for suitable for residential development in order to accommodate the needs of Berkeley residents. The Element would not encourage housing growth beyond the goals, policies and programs established in the General Plan and studied in the 2001 Draft General Plan EIR. Therefore, adoption of the 2009 Housing Element would not impact the provision of public services beyond impacts anticipated and studied in the General Plan EIR [Ref. 4].

XV. RECREATION --

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

The 2009 Housing Element is a policy document rather than a development project proposal. The Element would not encourage housing growth beyond the goals, policies and programs established in the General Plan, including the open Space & Recreation Element. The Housing Element would not generate population growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, adoption of the 2009 Housing Element would not impact the existing open space and recreational facilities beyond impacts anticipated and studied in the General Plan EIR [Ref. 4].



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

24

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

The Housing Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development projects and thus would not generated new vehicle trips. The Housing Element would not generate population growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR [Ref. 4]. Therefore, adoption of the 2009 Housing Element would not impact the performance of the circulation system beyond impacts anticipated and studied in the General Plan EIR. From a regional perspective, the Housing Element should have beneficial cumulative impact on congestion by encouraging development in locations served by transit, thereby reducing or at least reducing the rate of increase in regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and improving the ridership of mass transit.

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

Not applicable. The closest airport is Oakland International which is approximately 7.5 miles from Berkeley. [Ref. 2]

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Not applicable. The 2009 Housing Element is not a development project and does not involve roadway redesign or development. Future development would be consistent with design requirements for emergency access and consistent with the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan. Future development would also be subject to individual project review, which would identify and mitigate any site-specific design-related hazards.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Not applicable. The 2009 Housing Element is not a development project and does not propose construction of new housing with the potential to be subject to inadequate emergency access. Future development on the opportunity sites identified within the Housing Element would be on sites that currently have vehicular access for emergency services on existing City roadways. Future development would also be consistent with design requirements for emergency access



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

25

and consistent with the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan, and would be subject to individual project review, which would identify and mitigate any site-specific emergency access impacts.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

The 2009 Housing Element includes policies consistent with implementation of General Plan policies and goals promoting alternative modes of transportation to private autos. [Ref 1]

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

The in the 2009 Housing Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development projects. The Element would not encourage housing growth beyond levels planned for in the General Plan. Therefore, the Element should have no additional impacts on utilities and service systems associated with development beyond those addressed in the General Plan EIR [Ref 4 pages 137 - 152].

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

See XVII a).

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

See XVII a)

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

See XVII a).

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

See XVII a).

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

See XVII a).



PS

I

<Sw

M

LS

26

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

See XVII a).

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

The goals, policies and actions of the 2009 Housing Element and anticipated population growth are consistent with the General Plan and would have no impacts with respect to environmental degradation, fish or wildlife species, plant or animal communities, or examples of California history, beyond those already evaluated in the General Plan EIR [Ref 4].

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable) means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

See XVIII a).

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

The 2009 Housing Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development projects. The Element is consistent with the growth anticipated in the General Plan EIR. The purpose of the Element is to identify the future housing needs of the City of Berkeley and establish goals and policies that guide decision-making to address housing needs. Adoption of the Element will not result in direct or indirect environmental effects which would have adverse effects on human beings.



27

11. SOURCE REFERENCES

1. General Plan, City of Berkeley, Adopted 2001-2002 2. California Division of Aeronautics “California Airport Data” 3. The California Department of Transportation, The California Scenic Highway System: A

List of Eligible and Officially Designated Routes. 4. Draft General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, February 2001; Final (Response to

Comments), June 2001 5. Downtown Area Plan Draft EIR, January 2009; Final, April 2009 6. Southside Plan Draft EIR, 2008 7. Zoning Ordinance, Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code 8. Draft 2009 Berkeley Housing Element, November 20, 2009

Late Communication - HTF Page 1 of 10

To: Members of the Planning Commision March 24, 2010 Planning and Development Department City of Berkeley 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 From: Cathleen Quandt 2413-C Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the West Berkeley Project Dear Ms. Cosin,

The DEIR fails to fully address the aesthetic implications of the proposed WBP. Light, Glare and Shadows Page 4-1, SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. AESTHETICS SETTING "West Berkeley is largely developed in structures which feature surfaces that produce glare during the day and which generate light from interior and exterior fixtures at night. There are large industrial facilities in the area which operate continuously and generate light associated with their operational activities, security systems and parking areas." I would like to challenge this false statement, as there are actually very few industrial facilities that operate continuously. It is not "largely developed in structures that produce glare during the day and generate light from interior and exterior fixtures at night". West Berkeley is largely developed in buildings with very few windows, producing minimal glare and generating very little light. One of the few, if not the only business, in West Berkeley that operates continuously is Bayer. Bayer's buildings have few windows, as they are production facilities, which do not require windows. The argument that is insinuated by the DEIR, that there is already so much light and glare that more will not have an impact, is false. The light and glare that currently exists is minimal. The type of R & D development that is proposed requires much more glazing than current manufacturing requires, therefore significantly increasing the light and glare potential. The final statement in the paragraph states: "Existing structures within West Berkeley currently create numerous shadows that fall across adjacent properties, sidewalks, streets and public spaces." There is no cause and effect summary to this statement in the DEIR. One is left to assume that because there are already shadows, the shadows of a 75' / FAR 3 structure will not create more shadows than currently exist, or that they won't be any worse. The difference between a shadow cast by an existing building of 21' tall with an FAR of under 1 (since this is the average height and FAR of existing buildings in West Berkeley) and a 75' building should be studied and reported in the DEIR. In addition a study should be done comparing the difference in shadow effects between a 35' high/1.5 FAR building (current height and FAR limits in the M-UR district) and a 45' high/ 2 FAR building (current height and FAR limits in other M districts) with a 75' building with an FAR of 3. These height differences need to be diagrammed and take into consideration the considerable slope of West Berkeley from East to West. There is a 50' difference in height between San Pablo Avenue and Aquatic Park. I disagree with the assumption that there is no difference in shadowing and loss of light between a building that is almost twice as tall and has an increased FAR of 50% and a 35'-45' tall building with an FAR of 2. The proposed mitigations for reducing the impacts of the shadowing do not demonstrate how they will mitigate the significant impacts. Specific mitigation measures should be required in the language of the West Berkeley Project and not left up to the Zoning Adjustments board to determine whether or not the mitigations are required. If something has been determined to

Late Communication - Quandt Page 1 of 4

have a "significant impact", the mitigations should be an essential part of the conditions of the West Berkeley Project and not left open for interpretation. For example, there is an almost certain potential for significant shadowing of Aquatic park if a 75' building is built on an adjacent site. The specific mitigation measures should be written into the WBP as a requirement for all MUP projects. Mitigation AES-S on page 2-3 of the DEIR Executive Summary states that : "… all structures with a proposed height of 45 feet or more to be located within the 1 manufacturing districts in West Berkeley shall be evaluated on a site- specific basis to determine the extent to which such buildings may cause increased and unreasonable shadows on any public open space or recreational area. Modifications to building heights, bulk or location should be considered as a way to reduce such shadowing." There would most certainly be a significant impact on the shadowing and atmosphere of Aquatic Park and therefore the sites adjacent to Aquatic Park should be categorically exempt from being developed as MUP sites. Height and Views DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PAGE 4-8 WEST BERKELEY PROJECT "The City of Berkeley has not generally considered views of the San Francisco Bay or Berkeley Hills from private property in the flatlands to be significant vistas in the application of its Zoning Ordinance, or in past planning documents. Even if the City were to regulate development for view impacts, in an area that is relatively flat, taller buildings would generally not have any greater impact on views from nearby private residences than currently permitted buildings of 45 feet when the tallest nearby residential buildings are permitted a maximum permitted height of either 35 feet (MU-R district), or 45 feet (MU-LI). " From Berkeley General Plan: • Policy UD-31: Construction should avoid blocking significant views, especially ones toward the Bay, the hills, and significant landmarks such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island. Whenever possible, new buildings should enhance a vista or punctuate or clarify the urban pattern. There is no place in The Berkeley General Plan's policy UD-31 that states that the views that are to be protected are only those from the hills. Thousands of Berkeley and West Berkeley residents would disagree with that interpretation. The assumption that a building of 45' with an FAR of 2 would block a significant view the same as a 75 ' building with an FAR of 3 building would, is a very narrow interpretation of how ones views could get blocked or not. Given the slope of West Berkeley, a building of 45' that is on 3rd Street would not block a view of the Golden Gate Bridge of someone on 6th street. Where-as a building of 75' would block the same view. Depending on where the building is located combined with the height of the building as well as the FAR, the blockage of significant views would vary greatly. To make a blanket statement that the blockage of views would be the same regardless of height is false. In addition, the protection of views applies to all of Berkeley, regardless of the current Zoning officer's interpretation. Floor Area Ratio There is a glaring omission of any specific discussion or effects of an increased FAR. Going from an FAR of 2 to an FAR of 3 significantly increases the massing of buildings. The combination of increased allowable massing with an increase in allowable height creates a scenario that greatly surpasses anything in West Berkeley. When it is considered that any indoor parking is exempt from FAR calculations in increases the density even more. The DEIR states that the "Zaentz Media Center (formerly Fantasy Records building) does not interfere with views from the hills." Yet, with the proposed increases in the FAR the new buildings have the potential to cover at least 3 times the area of the Zaentz building, with a much higher potential to block significant views on a site of the same size. If there were MUP sites that were aggregated or adjacent to other MUP sites, the result would be that of a 75' wall of buildings that could run across West Berkeley. This potential impact needs to be addressed in the DEIR because it would greatly change the fabric and character of West Berkeley, reduce views of the bay throughout Berkeley, greatly increase glare and shadows, separate Berkeley from Aquatic Park and be highly detrimental to the residents of West Berkeley and especially to those in the the M-UR.


Character By potentially doubling the allowable FAR, new development has the capability of outsizing the existing fabric, thereby changing the character of the area. The existing West Berkeley Plan describes the existing FAR as follows:

"Only 1 small area of West Berkeley--the portion incorporating Parker Plaza and Fantasy Records--has an overall Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of greater than 1. This means that only in this area is there on average more than 1 square foot of building for each square foot of land, although there are other individual sites with an FAR of greater than 1(e.g. Colgate). FARs of 2 or more are rare."

Goal 4 of the Existing West Berkeley Plan states:"Assure that new development in any sector is of a scale and design that is appropriateto its surroundings, while respecting the genuine economic and physical needs of 2 thedevelopment.Rationale:The modest scale of many West Berkeley areas, both residential and economicallyactive, is an important aspect of their character. As development occurs in these areas,the City must balance the economic and physical needs of the development itself withthe scale of the area, should these come in conflict." The DEIR needs to address the potential change of character from the perspective of what currently exists in West Berkeley, not in relation to what could exist under current zoning. The West Berkeley plan states: "West Berkeley is home to striking industrial architecture, historic Victorian homes, and urbane new commercial buildings, as well as purely utilitarian structures and highway-oriented “strips”. Industrial West Berkeley’s bold forms and sharp edges communicate a message of motion and machine force. Large low buildings on large sites give a valuable sense of (relative) openness in industrial areas. By contrast, the dense weave of smaller structures in mixed use areas convey the sense of a busy workshop. The parks of West Berkeley – despite their deficiencies – are key open spaces softening the environment.” The DEIR states: "However, in the areas affected by this zoning there is no well identified visual character except a utilitarian one…" Clearly there would be an enormous change in the quality and character of West Berkeley with a 75' height limit and an FAR of 3 that could not be mitigated. The dismissive statement with regard to character is false and the DEIR is inadequate in reviewing the potential significant impacts to the existing character. Leaving the determination of the impacts to be decided by ZAB or City Council on appeal is not mitigation. Special Circumstances in M-UR The fact that 65% (78 acres) of the M-UR Zone is small scale residential has not been addressed in the DEIR. At least 1,333 people live in the M zones, mostly in the M-UR. It is one of the most diverse neighborhoods in Berkeley. The existing West Berkeley Plan recognizes the M-UR as not only a buffer zone between the all residential and the other M zones, it has appropriately specified a height limit of 28'-35' (depending on use). This is already at least 10' lower than the allowable height limit of 45' in the rest of the M zones. It also has an FAR maximum of 1.5 instead of 2. The following are some of the guiding principals in the Land Use Districting section of the West Berkeley Plan: "Protect residential core neighborhoods from adverse impacts of economic growth--especially traffic and parking congestion and noise.Rationale:The residential core neighborhoods are made up primarily of houses and apartments,much like other residential Berkeley neighborhoods. A safe and pleasant residentialenvironment is important there. These neighborhoods should enjoy the same protectionfrom through traffic on non- arterial (and non-collector) streets and from commercialparking spill-over that other residential neighborhoods enjoy. The facts that theseneighborhoods are adjacent to industrial and other economically active areas, and thatthey are occupied in large part by low income people do not diminish their need forthese protections." "Existing residential clusters within mixed use areas should be strengthened andlegitimized;"

"Residents should be buffered from the effects of heavy industrial uses as much aspossible;"

"The zoning should allow desired development in an area (e.g. residential infill,expansion of existing manufacturers),


but generally not permit a radical change of areacharacter;"

"Although they are not the only consideration, the desires of businesses, propertyowners, and residents in a particular area are especially important in developingdistricting/zoning for that area;"

"Residents should be buffered from the effects of heavy industrial uses as much aspossible;"

Mixed Use-Residential :

"To maintain the [M-UR] district's smaller scale ofdevelopment, it has a lower height limit and lower allowed Floor Area Ratio (amount ofdevelopment per square foot of land) than do the manufacturing and light industrialdistricts:" "No new residential use may be established within 150 feet of an any property in amanufacturing district (i.e. Manufacturing, Mixed-Manufacturing); nor within 150' ofexisting "heavy" manufacturer in any zone."

"No new or expanded manufacturing use may be established within 150 feet of anexisting residential use, unless Performance Standards are met and a Use Permit isobtained." 3 The DEIR needs to study the proposed changes in relation to existing small scale residential and how the changes affect each of these principals. This is especially important with-in the M-UR and any zone that abuts the M-UR. The M-UR needs to retain it's residential scale and protections. Development Assumptions and how they are studied The purpose of the DEIR is to determine potential impacts. The DEIR should refrain from blanket assumptions such as: "While the impact may be significant, in the absence of project-specific designs for such structures it is not possible to determine with any certainty the level of impact" or " A few buildings at the maximum height would not be expected to result in a significant adverse cumulative effect" These statements dismiss possible impacts as "project specific" or "a few buildings", yet the very purpose of the DEIR is to research the implications of projects built to the maximum proposed allowances. Since there is no limit to the MUP sites and aggregation of smaller properties would be permitted, all of the assumptions in the DEIR should assume the maximum development of the maximum amount of sites and the collective impacts of that development and base it's findings on that level of development. Anything less would be an inadequate evaluation. Evaluation of Alternatives To gain a complete understanding of the goals in relation to zoning standards such as height and FAR, a study needs to be done on the possibility of the square footage goals being met within the existing height and FAR standards. According to the DEIR, the projected development in the next 20 years is 1.9 million square feet of re-hab space and 1.9 million square feet of new construction for a total of just under 4 million square feet. The County assessor estimates that there exists 10.5 million square feet of developed space in the M zones, at an FAR of about 1, with an average height of 21'. Under current zoning standards of 45' and an FAR of 2, there is the potential to build another 10.5 million square feet, doubling the amount of developed space. If the goal is to add +/- 4 million square feet total in the next 20 years and there is 10.5 million currently available to develop, the height and FAR do not need to be changed to meet those goals. Sincerely, Cathleen Quandt -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


March 24, 2010 To: Members of the Planning Commission City of Berkeley Planning and Development 2118 Milvia Street Berkeley CA 94704 From: Patrick Sheahan, Architect & MU-R Resident Re: West Berkeley Project-DEIR (in quotes): West Berkeley Plan (in italics) Comments in sans-serif type 1) "The goals and objectives of the West Berkeley Plan and the General Plan would not be changed by the West Berkeley Project." This is a false statement: The West Berkeley Project effectively negates the West Berkeley Plan and associated zoning. The West Berkeley Project allows for unrestricted assembly of all M district properties to create Master Use Sites, and allows interchangeability of uses within the Master Use Sites. This effectively creates a single zone which would allow all uses allowed in any of the current M zones to locate anywhere within any of the M zones, as long as it is within a Master Use Site. Thus heavy industry, residential, offices and any other uses could exist side by side throughout the M zones, including the MU-R. This is in contradiction with the stated goals of the West Berkeley Plan and the General Plan, and effectively renders obsolete the current zoning initiated by the West Berkeley Plan. The DEIR assumptions are based on currently identified >4 acre sites, and fails to acknowledge the potential of unlimited aggregation of MUP sites. The DEIR fails to address the possibility or account for the impacts associated with the assembly of additional >4 acres MUP sites beyond those currently identified. 2) "Aesthetics": The aesthetic impact of 75' buildings with an FAR of 3 is inadequately addressed. "Under the West Berkeley Project, up to 3,800,000 gross square feet of new non-residential floor space could be constructed in West Berkeley over the next 20 years. The development of new buildings (some up to 75 feet in height) would each contribute cumulatively to a change in the existing visual appearance of West Berkeley. However, in the areas affected by this zoning there is no well identified visual character except a utilitarian one, and projects built under the West Berkeley Project are expected to be consistent with that character. " The West Berkeley Plan states: West Berkeley is home to striking industrial architecture, historic Victorian homes, and urbane new commercial buildings, as well as purely utilitarian structures. This complexity, along with the renewed sense of desirability of the area, means that the area requires particular sensitivity in new development The DEIR statement, "there is no well identified visual character except a utilitarian one" is in direct contradiction to the West Berkeley Plan, and fails to acknowledge the aesthetic impact of 75' buildings. The proposed height and FAR standards for MUP sites contravenes the intent of the West Berkeley Plan: Developments in such "edge" locations should seek to minimize--to the greatest degree possible--abrupt changes of building scale.

Late Communication - Sheahan Page 1 of 3

The DEIR fails to acknowledge parking impacts on building mass. Parking is not included in FAR calculations, which allows building mass to far exceed the mass when parking structures are not included (i.e. 3) "A few buildings at the maximum height would not be expected to result in a significant adverse cumulative effect on existing views of landmarks such as the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz, the San Francisco skyline and the Marin Headlands from the hills of Berkeley, and mitigations proposed above should ensure that existing east/west vistas along streets to the Bay or Hills are retained." The statement fails to acknowledge significant views throughout Berkeley in areas not in the hills of Berkeley. This reflects a prejudicial position towards residents who do not live in the hills. The statement also qualifies the impact as limited to "A few buildings at the maximum height" (of 75'), without acknowledging that under the West Berkeley Project the entire M zones could be filled with 75' buildings. The DEIR fails to analyze the difference in aesthetic impacts between the current 45' height and the proposed 75' height. "The development of taller buildings than would be permitted in the absence of the West Berkeley Project would be expected to result in a cumulative increase in the total area that would be shaded by those structures, which could affect properties located nearby, individual yards and gardens, and solar collectors. However, with effective implementation of the proposed mitigation, the impact would not be expected to be significant. " Mitigations proposed are discretionary and do not contain provisions for enforcement. It is reasonable to assume the absence of mitigations, leading to a finding of significant impact. 4) "Evaluation of Alternatives: Under the No Project alternative, development would not be affected by the West Berkeley Project. Under existing zoning regulations this development would be less intense than would be anticipated under the West Berkeley Project." This statement is faulty reasoning. The County Assessor estimates that there is 10.5 million square feet of developed space in the M zones, at an FAR of about 1. Under current zoning standards of 45' and an FAR of 2, there is the potential to build another 10.5 million square feet, doubling the amount of developed space. The DEIR assumes development of 1.9 million square feet of rehabilitated space, and 1.9 million square feet of new construction space. At the current height of 45' and an FAR of 2, there is about 10.5 million square feet available for new construction space. At the rate of 1.9 million square feet of new construction space over the next 20 years, there exists the capacity to absorb new construction for the next 100 years. Similarly, at the rate of 1.9 million square feet of rehabilitated space over the next 20 years, there is the capacity to absorb rehabilitated space for the next 100 years. "Under the Limited Height alternative, the total floor area developed within the zoning districts that would be affected by the West Berkeley Project would be anticipated to be similar over the 20-year planning period to that anticipated under the West Berkeley Project. However, with a 45-foot height limit, this development would be less intense than would be anticipated under the West Berkeley Project, although more sites within the area would be likely to be developed to achieve similar total development floor space. Although the Limited Height alternative would result in reduced visual impacts and less potential shadowing relative to the West Berkeley Project, it would not meet the West Berkeley Project objectives to the same extent as would the


West Berkeley Project if the 45-foot height restriction were to impede the City’s ability to facilitate development of large land holdings in West Berkeley." This statement is faulty reasoning. This alternative does not address FAR, without which building density and mass cannot be evaluated, and does not define the impediment that 45' buildings pose. The discussion of the above alternatives fails to define the objective of the West Berkeley Project that would not be met under the alternatives. 5) "The West Berkeley Project has been prepared by the City of Berkeley to amend the current zoning requirements in the existing Manufacturing (M), Mixed Manufacturing (MM) and Mixed Use/Light Industrial (MU-LI), and to a lesser extent the Mixed-Use Residential (MU- R) zoning districts in order to: 1) remove obstacles to economically viable reuse of existing buildings consistent with the primary goals and objectives of the West Berkeley Plan; and 2) facilitate development of large land holdings through a revised Master Use Permit process." West Berkeley Plan: • Mixed Use/Residential District. … To maintain the district’s smaller scale of development, it has a lower height limit and lower allowed Floor Area Ratio (amount of development per square foot of land) than do the manufacturing and light industrial districts. The West Berkeley Project allows unlimited aggregation of MUP sites in the MUR. Once an MUP site is established in the MUR (the Peerless site is partially in the MU-R), the allowable height of 75' and FAR of 3 applies, in addition to the interchangeability of uses within the Master Use sites. The statement in the DEIR " to a lesser extent the Mixed-Use Residential (MU-R)" is false, and in contradiction to the West Berkeley Plan, as under an MUP the same development standards apply in the MU-R as in other M districts. 6) "Development Standards: Regulate height by FAR, not by the number of stories (M, MM, MU-R, MU-LI), …" "A maximum height limit of 75 feet…." The above two statements are inconsistent. To regulate height by FAR effectively allows unlimited height (i.e. a 75' office building could be built on top of a 75' parking structure, creating a 75' structure).


Late Communication - Stull Page 1 of 1

Late Communication - DeCredico - Page 1 of 1

Late Communication - Mester Page 1 of 6

Late Communications - Poschman Page 1 of 4

regular meeting of the planning commission this … · 3/24/2010 · letter from john english to...

Documents