California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial …...2013/03/28 · California Environmental...

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study and Environmental Review Checklist

Dave’s 76 849 University Avenue

March 2013 Planning and Development Department

Land Use Planning Division

DRAFT PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY 1. PROJECT TITLE

Dave’s 76

2. LEAD AGENCY

City of Berkeley 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704

3. CONTACT PERSON

Claudine Asbagh, Assistant Planner Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division Phone: (510) 981-7424 Email: [email protected]

4. PROJECT SPONSOR

New Era Energy 849 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710

5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION

Avenues Commercial (AC)

6. ZONING

West Berkeley Commercial (C-W)

7. PROJECT LOCATION

The 13,330 sq. ft project site is located in West Berkeley, on the north side of University Avenue at the intersection of Seventh Street and University Avenue. The site lies within the West Berkeley Commercial Zoning District (C-W) and lies within a commercial node as designated by the West Berkeley Area Plan and the University Avenue Strategic Plan.

MARCH 2013 INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST

CITY OF BERKELEY DAVE’S 76 – 849 UNIVERSITY AVENUE

8. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:

The project involves the expansion of an existing 745 square foot, single-story gasoline station and convenience store. The project will add 1,400 square-feet of new ground floor retail and create a new second story, 435 square feet office. The new second story will be located on the northwest portion of the building and the garage/smog station will be relocated to the eastern side of the building. No changes are proposed for the service station islands or canopy.

9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING:

Surrounding uses include a four-unit apartment building to the north, retail commercial to the east, and another gas station immediately adjacent (west). The site fronts University Avenue, a major corridor that runs from Interstate 80 located west of the site to the University of California Campus located to the east.

10. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED:

None.



Figure 1: Site Photo



Figure 2: Existing Site Plan – Ground Level



Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan



Figure 4: Proposed Floor Plans – First Floor/ Second Floor Office

Discretionary Actions It is anticipated that the proposed project would require the following permits:

• Design Review to allow the construction of new floor area and second story;

• Use Permit Modification to allow 24-hour operation and the addition of new floor area.



Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least four impacts that are “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. � Aesthetics � Agricultural and Forestry Resources � Air Quality

� Biological Resources � Cultural Resources � Geology/Soils

� Greenhouse Gas Emissions � Hazards & Hazardous Materials � Hydrology/Water Quality

� Land Use/Planning � Mineral Resources � Noise

� Population/Housing � Public Services � Recreation

� Transportation/Traffic � Utilities/Service Systems � Mandatory Findings of Significance

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.

March 7, 2013

Claudine Asbagh, Assistant Planner City of Berkeley

Date



CHECKLIST

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

� � � �

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City’s Zoning Ordinance defines a view corridor as one that provides, “a significant view of the Berkeley Hills, San Francisco Bay, Mt. Tamalpais, or a significant landmark such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island or any other significant vista that substantially enhances the value and enjoyment of real property.”1 The proposed project would add a new, 435 square foot, second story to the existing single story structure. The project is not located within a designated view corridor, and will not substantially affect the views from adjacent residences because project is located in a primarily commercial, urbanized area that has a mix of one to three-story buildings.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and

historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (No Impact) There are no State scenic highways within the vicinity.2 Therefore, the proposed project would not have an adverse affect on scenic resources associated with a State scenic highway.

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (No

Impact) In 1986, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to include requirements for design review of proposed new construction and exterior alterations in non-residential zones to help preserve the architectural integrity and character of buildings. In most cases design review is done by the City staff or Design Review Committee (DRC), depending on the type of permit required. For projects that require a public hearing before the Zoning Adjustments Board, the DRC makes a recommendation to the Board.3

1 Berkeley, City of, 2011. Municipal Code, Title 23, Zoning Ordinance.

2 California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway System. Website:

www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed August 23, 2012). 3

Berkeley, City of, 2002. Berkeley General Plan, Urban Design and Preservation Element.



Design guidelines have been adopted for use in the design review process. The guidelines are intended to assist project designers, City staff, and City decision makers with the design review process. The proposed expansion of the building complies with the University Avenue Strategic Plan, design guidelines and has been approved by the City’s Design Review Committee on February 16, 2012 (subject to final design review). The Committee has recommended that the Board approve the project subject to specific design review conditions that will be included in the Permit.

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

The project does not include any substantial new outdoor light sources and will be subject to a standard condition of approval requiring all light sources to be shielded and directed away from adjacent properties.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farm-land. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assess-ment Project; and forest carbon measurement meth-odology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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 a 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 zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

� � � �

d) Result in the loss of 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 non-forest use?

� � � �

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 a non-agricultural use? (No Impact)



The project site and vicinity are located within an urban area in the City of Berkeley. There are no agricultural resources located on or near the project site. The site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the State Department of Conservation.4 Therefore, development of the proposed project would not convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a nonagricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) The project site is zoned as West Berkeley Commercial District (C-W) on the City’s Zoning Map and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.5 Therefore, the proposed project would not 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 zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (No Impact)

The project site is located within an urban area in the City of Berkeley and is within the C-W zoning district. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, nor result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No Impact)

Refer to Section II.c. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. 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 non-forest use? (No Impact)

The Environmental Management Element of the City’s General Plan states that, “Agriculture in Berkeley is limited to personal and community gardens.” No existing or proposed community gardens are located within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in: the extension of infrastructure into an undeveloped area, the development of urban uses on a greenfield site, or other physical changes that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

4

California Department of Conservation, 2011. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Alameda County Important Farmland 2010 (map). Website: www.consrv.ca.gov/ dlrp/fmmp/index.htm (accessed August 23, 2012).

5 California Department of Conservation, 2009. Alameda County Williamson Act Lands 2009 (map). Website:

ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Map%20and%20PDF/Alameda/AlamedaWA_09_10.pdf (accessed August 23, 2012).



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

� � � �

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

� � � �

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

� � � �

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less Than Significant

Impact) The project is consistent with the General Plan, and air quality impacts of development under the General Plan have been analyzed and mitigation measures adopted. Those mitigations have also been incorporated into standard conditions of approval that are included in the permit and will reduce the air quality impact of this project to less than significant.

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

violation? (Less Than Significant Impact) See III(a) above.

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project

region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less Than Significant Impact)

See III(a) above.



d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant

Impact) Construction activities, especially grading, can generate dust if not properly controlled. The City of Berkeley includes standard conditions of approval for construction in order to ensure that dust is minimized to a less than significant level. The condition reads as follows:

“The following dust-control measures shall be implemented during construction: regular watering of all active construction areas, covering of debris and other loose materials, maintaining two feet of board and covering trucks hauling any loose materials to or from the site, and sweeping all materials from public streets and sidewalks.”

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant

Impact) Some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving during the project construction period. Operational uses, particularly the gasoline pumps may also generate objectionable odors, although this use is already present on the project site and will not be expanded as part of this project. As the construction activities and gasoline pump operation will be monitored by The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)6, the impacts will be less than significant.

6 The agency requires that construction activity that generates pollutants must obtain a permit



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 U.S. 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?

� � � �

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? (No Impact)

The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and the site is currently developed with a one-story commercial building. Existing vegetation on the site consists of street trees and landscaping shrubs. Due to the urban location and limited amount of landscaping on site, these trees and shrubs are unlikely to provide suitable habitat for special-status bird species. Common wildlife species that are adapted to urban environments would continue to use the site after redevelopment. The site is not occupied by, or suited



for, any special status species. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on special-status plant or wildlife species.

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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact)

The project site is located in the West Berkeley Commercial District and does not support any riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impact to these habitats or communities would occur as a result of the proposed project.

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? (No Impact)

The project site does not support any federally protected wetlands.7 Therefore, no impact to federally protected wetlands would occur as a result of the proposed project. 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? (Less-than-Significant Impact)

The project site is not located within a migratory wildlife movement corridor. Furthermore, most of the species that likely use the site are "generalists" that are adept at moving through urban landscapes. Trees and other landscape vegetation generally have the potential to support nests of common native bird species8. However, because the site is located in a busy commercial corridor and only a few small shrubs would be removed from the project site, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree

preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) The City of Berkeley’s Coast Live Oak Tree Ordinance9 regulates removal and pruning of this particular tree species. However, the project site does not contain any Coast Live Oaks. Existing street trees on University Avenues would remain and be supplemented with new trees and landscaping. There are no other biological resources on the site. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 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? (No Impact)

The project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of a habitat conservation plan, natural community plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

7

Berkeley, City of, 2002. Berkeley General Plan. Environmental Management Element.

8 All native birds and their nests, regardless of their regulatory status, are protected under the federal Migratory Bird

Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. 9 Berkeley, City of, 2006. Ordinance No. 6,905-N.S., amending Ordinance 6,321-N.S. March 9.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

� � � �

Responses in this section rely on the information and findings provided in the West Berkeley Project Draft EIR,10 unless otherwise noted. This report is available for review at the City of Berkeley, Planning and Development Department. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in

§15064.5? (No Impact) The project does not involve a historic resource as defined §15064.5. The project proposes a two-story addition to a building that is less than 50 years old station has been subsequently remodeled.11

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

§15064.5? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located less than 1,000 feet away from the Shellmound (City of Berkeley Landmark #227, CAALA #307). Although it is not visible at the earth’s surface, the extent of the Shellmound as designated by the Landmark Preservation Commission is two and one-half blocks within an area bounded by the Union Pacific railroad tracks on the west, Hearst Avenue on the north, a line extending between Hearst Avenue and University Avenue approximately halfway between Fourth Street and Fifth Street on the east, and University Avenue on the south. The project proposes modest excavation on a site that has been excavated numerous times, most recently to replace the underground storage tanks. The West Berkeley Project Draft EIR identified potential impacts of construction within the area adjacent to the Shellmound, and mitigations were adopted applicable to all future projects within the study area that would reduce impacts to less than significant:

10

Lamphier – Gregory, West Berkeley Project DEIR, January 2010.

11 City of Berkeley Land Use History Card indicates that the gas station was demolished and remodeled in 1964. Subsequent remodeling occurred in 1985 and 1987.



Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If archaeological resources are uncovered during construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified archaeologist can be contacted to evaluate the situation, determine if the deposit qualifies as an archaeological resource, and provide recommendations. If the deposit does not qualify as an archaeological resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the deposit does qualify as an archaeological resource, then the impacts to the deposit shall be avoided by project activities. If the deposit cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the deposit must be mitigated. Mitigation may include, but is not limited to, archaeological data recovery. Upon completion of the archaeologist’s assessment, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods, findings and recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the City, the project proponent and the NWIC.

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

(Less Than Significant Impact) There is no evidence or previous findings of paleontological or unique geological resources in West Berkeley. However, the West Berkeley Project EIR adopted mitigations applicable to all future projects within the study area that would reduce impacts to less than significant:

Halt Work/Paleontological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. Should paleontological resources be encountered during construction or site preparation activities, such works shall be halted in the vicinity of the find. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the nature of the find and determine if mitigation is necessary. All feasible recommendations of the paleontologist shall be implemented. Mitigation may include, but is not limited to, in-field documentation and recovery of specimen(s), laboratory analysis, the preparation of a report detailing the methods and findings of the investigation, and curation at an appropriate paleontological collection facility.

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

Significant Impact) Although there are no formal cemeteries located within West Berkeley, and no human remains are known to be present, there is likelihood that human remains may be present in the Shellmound area. The West Berkeley Project Draft EIR identified potential impacts of construction within the area adjacent to the Shellmound, and mitigations were adopted applicable to all future projects within the study area that would reduce impacts to less than significant:

Halt Work/Coroner’s Evaluation/Native American Heritage Consultation/Compliance with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. If human remains are encountered during construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the remains should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and any associated grave goods. The archaeologist shall recover scientifically-valuable information, as appropriate and in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD. Upon completion of the archaeologist’s assessment, a report should be prepared documenting methods and results, as well as recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated archaeological materials. The report should be submitted to the City, the project proponent and the NWIC.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

� � � �

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?

� � � �

Responses in this section rely on the information and findings provided in the preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation12 prepared for the project site, unless otherwise noted. This report is available for review at the City of Berkeley, Planning and Development Department. 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

12

Korbmacher, Bruno, Geotechnical Study 849 University Avenue, Korbmacher Engineering, 2012 .



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? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)

Fault Rupture. No portion of the proposed project site is within the established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (A-PEFZ),13 and no active faults have been mapped on the project site by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) or the California Geological Survey (CGS).14 Faults with known surface rupture have been mapped in California, and none are known to occur at the project site, therefore the potential for impacts to the proposed project due to fault rupture are less than significant. Groundshaking. Ground shaking is likely to occur within the life of the project as a result of future earthquakes. The closest known active fault to the project site is the Hayward Fault, which has been mapped in an A-PEFZ approximately 3.6 miles northeast of the site. Other active faults within 25 miles of the project site include the Calaveras, Rodgers Creek, and Concord-Green Valley Faults. The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities report and the USGS predicted there is a 31 percent probability of a 6.7 magnitude or greater earthquake on the Hayward/Rodgers Creek fault system between 2007 and 2037.15 The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has classified the Modified Mercalli Intensity Shaking Severity Level of ground shaking in the proposed project vicinity due to an earthquake on the North Hayward segment of the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault System as “IX-Violent”.16 Violent shaking would result in collapse or serious damage to masonry buildings; shifting of unbolted wood structures off their foundations; and underground pipe breakage. The City imposes as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading permits, a design-level geotechnical investigation, in compliance with City of Berkeley guidelines, shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City for review and confirmation that the proposed improvements fully comply with City requirements. The investigation shall determine the proposed project’s geotechnical conditions, including seismic shaking hazard and measures to address these hazards. The investigation shall also address potential geohazards, including: subsidence, collapse, soil expansion, and differential settlement. The investigation shall identify engineering techniques appropriate to minimize potential geohazard damage. Implementation of this standard condition ensures that the impacts will be reduced to less than significant. Liquefaction. Liquefaction of soils can occur when ground shaking causes saturated soils to lose strength due to an increase in pore pressure. ABAG has identified the liquefaction hazard in this area of West Berkeley as generally “moderate low” to “very low.”17 Liquefaction susceptibility depends on the engineering properties of the sediments below individual structures. Review of the official seismic

13

California Department of Conservation, 2010. California Geological Survey – Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones in Electronic Format. Website: www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm (accessed August 23, 2012).

14 U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, 2006. Quaternary fault and fold database for the United

States. Website: earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/ (accessed August 23, 2012). 15

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, USC-SCEC/CEA Technical Report #1. Website: http://www.wgcep.org/sites/wgcep.org/files/SCEC_CEA_Report1.pdf (accessed December 18, 2012)

16 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003. Earthquake Shaking Hazard Map, Berkeley/North Hayward Segment

of the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault System. Website: quake.abag.ca.gov/shaking/ maps/ (accessed June 21, 2011). 17

Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003. ABAG Earthquake Liquefaction Hazard Maps, North and South Hayward Fault Segments. Website: www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickmapliq.pl (accessed August 21, 2012).



hazard map for this area prepared by the CGS indicates the site is not in an area requiring a liquefaction investigation according to Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California of the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG).18 Landslides. The site is not located within a mapped landslide or landslide hazard area, or within an official zone of Required Investigation for seismically-induced landsliding.19 Improvements proposed as part of the project do not include substantial mounding of earth or other substantive changes to grade that would create slope instability hazards. Therefore, persons or structures would not be adversely affected by landslides at the project site. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would demolish portions of the existing structure, remove existing landscaping and pavement, and require minimal site grading. Implementation of the proposed project may cause erosion impacts during construction and operations; this potential impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation the City’s standard conditions of approval related to construction related activities (please refer to Section IX.a). 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? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)

Lateral spreading/lurching is a situation in which soil mass deforms laterally toward a free face, such as a stream bank, during a seismic event. The failure occurs along a liquefiable/weak subsurface layer. Based on the preliminary geotechnical investigation, the site has a low potential for lateral spreading. (See also VI.a) 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? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Expansive soils expand and contract in response to changes in soil moisture, most notably when near surface soils change from saturated to a low moisture content condition, and back again. Based on the preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, the near surface soils have a moderate to high expansion potential and could be subject to movements with increased moisture content. A standard condition of approval that the project complies with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation will reduce the potential impacts associated with expansive soils to a less-than-significant level. 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? (No Impact) The proposed project does include the installation or use of septic or on-site wastewater disposal systems, and would be connected to City of Berkeley sanitary sewer system. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts associated with soils incapable of supporting alternative wastewater disposal systems.

18

California Geological Survey, 2003. Seismic Hazard Zonation Map, Oakland West. Website: gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/html/pdf_maps_no.html (accessed August 21, 2012). February 14.

19 California Geological Survey, 2003. Seismic Hazard Zonation Map, Oakland West. Website:

gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/html/pdf_maps_no.html (accessed September 19, 2012). February 14.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

� � � �

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant

impact on the environment? (No Impact) For land use development projects (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities), the BAAQMD’s draft significance criteria consider a project to result in significant GHG-related impacts if: (1) it does not comply with a qualified climate action plan or qualified general plan; (2) annual GHG emissions exceed 1,100 metric tons per year; or (3) annual GHG emissions exceed 4.6 metric tons per service population (residents plus employees). The BAAQMD’s screening criteria20 provide a conservative indication of whether or not a project could result in potentially significant GHG-related impacts. Generally, and without consideration for the location of the project (i.e., whether or not it is a greenfield or infill site) or implementation of any mitigation measures, the screening criteria indicate that a 24-hour convenience store greater than 1,000 square feet could exceed operational GHG thresholds. Therefore, because the proposed project includes the addition of 1,400 square feet of new floor area and the expansion of operating hours to 24-hours, the proposed project may exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. A quantitative evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions is required to determine the project’s impact on global climate change. BAAQMD’s preferred method for quantifying GHG emissions from a project is to use the BAAQMD GHG Model (BGM). The Air District developed this model to calculate GHG emissions not included in URBEMIS (another commonly used model) such as indirect emissions from electricity use and waste and direct fugitive emissions of refrigerants. BGM quantifies different types of GHG emissions in terms of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) and contains a broad range of GHG reduction strategies that may be applied to projects. BGM also adjusts for state regulations, specifically California’s low carbon fuel rules and Pavley regulations. GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long-term regional emissions associated with project through vehicle trips, energy consumption, and water consumption. A quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions related to the project determined that the project

20

Bay Area Air Quality management District, 2011. CEQA Guidelines (Table 3-1). May 2011.



would generate approximately 1,338.72 CO2e (metric tpy). The BGM also calculated that the baseline project for the site (as is) generates approximately 666.1 CO2e (metric tpy) which means that the proposed project will generate a net total of 672.62 CO2 (metric tpy). This amount is less than the 1,100 metric tpy threshold of significance set by BAAQMD. GHG emissions created by the project would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the

emissions of greenhouse gases? (No Impact) In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California’s GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals for the State of California: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” passed by the California State legislature on August 31, 2006. This effort aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. At the regional level, the BAAQMD established a climate protection program in 2005 to acknowledge the link between climate change and air quality. BAAQMD regularly prepares inventories of criteria and toxic air pollutants to support planning, regulatory and other programs. In addition, the City of Berkeley residents approved Measure G in 2006 that seeks to reduce the entire community’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. In 2009, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to provide guidance in addressing impacts on global warming. These planning policies are used during the permitting process to determine if particular projects are consistent with the policies and whether they meet the established goals to reduce GHS’s. The project is consistent with the city’s General Plan, Climate Action Plan and all regulations regarding the reduction of greenhouse gasses.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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

� � � �

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

� � � �

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or

disposal of hazardous materials? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)



Development of the project site with new retail floor area and 24-hour operation would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. The project would routinely handle and use small quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials, such as household cleaning and landscaping supplies. However, these materials are not expected to be used in sufficient quantities or contrary to normal use to pose a threat to human health or the environment. Further development of the project site would therefore have a less-than-significant impact on the public and the environment related to the routine transport, use, and handling 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? (Less Than Significant Impact)

Development of the project would not involve the expansion of the existing retail fuel dispensing operations. The project site has an existing gasoline filling station with underground storage tanks (USTs), dispensers and ancillary equipment for leak detection monitoring, and air quality controls. Products include ethanol blend, biodiesel blend, gasoline and #2 diesel. The project site has a history of soil and groundwater contamination however these conditions were addressed historically as described below. In 1987, one 275 gallon waste oil tank located at the north side of the station building was removed from the site and the ground was over-excavated to remove the toxic soils. An addition to the station building was built over the former tank pit and a new, double-walled waste oil tank was installed. Monitoring wells were installed to help detect any subsequent leaks. In 1990, two USTs were removed and replaced with newer systems and additional monitoring wells installed. A monthly and quarterly groundwater monitoring program was initiated. Subsequent reports found that contamination at the site had decreased and would continue to decrease with time. The case was closed by the City of Berkeley and the SWRCB 2006. The project proposes 1,400 square feet of new retail floor area, 435 square feet of second story office floor area and the expansion of hours to 24-hour operation. The project does not propose any changes to the service islands or canopy. This expansion is expected to involve modest excavation for new footings and utility connections where it is reasonably foreseeable that improper handling of soil during construction would cause the release of fuel-impacted soil material into the environment. Although the underground tank systems that leaked have been removed and replaced with newer systems, it is anticipated that residual fuel constituents will be present in some areas of the site. The City imposes a standard condition of approval that requires the applicant to submit a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (Plan) that provides procedures to be followed when performing subsurface work. This condition will ensure that impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or

waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less Than Significant Impact) Black Pine Circle Day School is located less than ¼ mile south of the project site. Implementation of conditions of approval as noted above would prevent any potential contamination from the project site from migrating off-site during construction. Therefore, potential impacts associated with hazardous materials releases within proximity to nearby schools would be reduced to less than significant.



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? (Less Than Significant Impact)

Based on a review of regulatory databases, including listed hazardous materials release sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the project site is listed as a hazardous materials site; however the case has been closed by the California State Water Resources Control Board.21 The CSRWCB closed the case in 2006. The City’s standard condition of approval noted in 8b will ensure that the project would not impact the public or the environment with respect to a reported release or disposal of hazardous materials related to a listed site and thus be less than significant (see discussion under VIII.b, above). 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? (No Impact)

The project site is located approximately 11 miles north of the Oakland International Airport. The project site does not lie within any restrictive area in the Oakland International Master Plan.22 Therefore, the proposed project would not result a safety hazard to people working or residing in the area due to the proximity of an airport. f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety

hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.23 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard to people working or residing in the area due to the proximity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) University Avenue, as well as many of the surface streets surrounding and intersecting this section of University Avenue, is a designated Emergency Access and Evacuation Route. The proposed project includes does not propose any changes to University Avenue therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project would substantially impair the ability of University Avenue to function as an emergency evacuation route. The proposed project is consistent with the policies outlined in the General Plan’s Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element and would not actually obstruct emergency evacuation routes.24

Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

21

California State Water Resources Control Board. Geo Tracker website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/default.asp (accessed August 28, 2012)

22 Port of Oakland, 2006. Oakland International Master Plan. Website: www.flyoakland.com/

masterplan_oak/support_documents.shtml (accessed June 22, 2012). March. 23

Berkeley, City of, 2002. Berkeley General Plan.

24 Berkeley, City of, 2002. Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the City of Berkeley General Plan. Website:

www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=48023 (accessed June 27, 2012). April.



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? (No Impact)

The project site is in an urban area and is not within or adjacent to a wildland fire hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant impact related to loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 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)?

� � � �

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?

� � � �

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?

� � � �

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?

� � � �

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

� � � �

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?

� � � �

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

� � � �

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

� � � �



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

� � � �

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Less Than Significant

Impact) In the Bay Area, including the project site, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is responsible for implementation the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region. The federal Clean Water Act established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program to control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies. Compliance with NPDES permits is mandated by State and federal regulations and is administered by the Water Board. Water quality control plans of the Water Board state that construction activities, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of one acre or more would require compliance with the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activity (Construction General Permit). The project site is 10,000 square feet in size, significantly less than one acre and will not one acre of land. Operation of the project would be subject to the Water Board’s Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), implemented in October 2009 by Order R2-2009-0074. Provision C.3 of the MRP addresses new development and redevelopment projects. As project construction would replace more than 50 percent of the existing impervious surface at the site, the entire project site, consisting of all existing, new, and/or replaced impervious surfaces, must be included in the treatment system design (i.e., stormwater treatment systems must be designed and sized to treat stormwater runoff from the entire redevelopment project). A Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) must be prepared and submitted for the project site detailing design elements and implementation measures to meet MRP requirements. The project will be required to include Low Impact Development (LID) design measures and a Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan must be prepared to ensure that stormwater control measures are inspected, maintained, and funded for the life of the project. The project site is currently almost completely covered with impervious surfaces. Additional landscaping will decrease the amount of impervious surfaces, but only by a nominal amount. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would cause disturbance of soil during excavation work, which could adversely impact water quality. Contaminants from construction vehicles and equipment and sediment from soil erosion could increase the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters during development. Long-term degradation of runoff water quality from project operation could adversely affect water quality in the receiving waters and San Francisco Bay. Implementation of the City’s conditions of approval regarding construction activities will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. 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)? (No Impact)



The proposed project site is currently developed as a gas station with incidental retail. The project will increase the floor area of the retail use and does not include additional uses that would deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. 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? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)

The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or a river. The project site is in an urban area and redevelopment of the site would result in only minor alterations to the drainage pattern. The culverted Strawberry Creek runs roughly parallel to University Avenue, approximately two blocks south of the project site. Compliance with construction- and operation-phase stormwater requirements would further ensure that development of the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. 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? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)

No alteration of a stream or river is proposed. The proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces (see discussion under Section IX.a, above) and would therefore not be expected to substantially alter the rate or amount of surface runoff on the site such that on- or off-site flooding would occur. Compliance with construction- and operation-phase stormwater requirements would further ensure that development of the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

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? (Less- Than-Significant Impact)

The proposed project would not increase impervious surfaces on the site so it should not increase stormwater volume or localized drainage flows. Runoff quality during construction and from landscaped areas during the operational phase of the project could contain pollutants (see discussion above under Section IX.a). Implementation of a required SWPPP and an SCP) would reduce potential pollutants and result in lower flows to the stormwater sewer system than under current conditions. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Operation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial changes to on-site water quality, with the exception of potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff described above. Standard conditions of approval noted in Section IX.a will reduce the impact to less than significant. 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? (No Impact) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).25 Therefore, no housing would be placed within a 100-year flood zone.

25

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2011. Stay Dry v2.0 data for Berkeley, California. Website: hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/NFHLWMSkmzdownload (accessed June 28, 2012).



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

(No Impact) Please refer to Section IX.g. The project site is not located within the 100-year flood zone and redevelopment of the site would not impede or redirect potential flood flows. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including

flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact) Please refer to Section IX.g. In addition, the project site is not located within the potential inundation zones for the Summit or Bergman Reservoirs, the nearest bodies of water likely to inundate areas of the City of Berkeley in the event of the failure of a levee or dam.26 Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a significant risk to people or structures as a result of levee or dam failure. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact) The project site is not located within a tsunami prone area.27 The project site and nearby properties are relatively level in elevation and not located near slopes that would be subject to mudflows. As no lakes or other surface water bodies are located in the project site vicinity, there is no potential for impacts from a seismically-induced seiche.28 Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to inundation due to seiche, tsunami, or mudflows.

26

Berkeley, City of, 2002, op. cit. Figure 16: Reservoir Inundation Hazards. 27

Berkeley, City of, 2002, op. cit. Figure 15: Flood and Tsunami Prone Areas. 28

A seiche is a standing wave observed in an enclosed or partially enclosed water body.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

� � � �

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?

� � � �

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

� � � �

a) Physically divide an established community? The project does not propose any new thoroughfares or additional development that would divide an established community. (No Impact) 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? (No Impact)

The proposed project would expand and existing use that is already consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, West Berkeley Area Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

(No Impact) Please refer to Section IV.f. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

� � � �

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?

� � � �

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? (No Impact) The proposed project is located within an urban area on a developed site. There are no known mineral resources within or in the vicinity of the project site.29 The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State. 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? (No Impact) Please refer to Section X.a. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally-important mineral resource recovery site.

29




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

� � � �

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

� � � �

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

� � � �

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

� � � �

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?

� � � �

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? (Less-Than-Significant)

The City of Berkeley addresses noise levels in the General Plan and Municipal Code. The standards within the City of Berkeley’s General Plan Environmental Management Element noise section determine the acceptable noise environment for proposed land uses. The City of Berkeley Municipal Code30 establishes exterior noise level standards for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Noise sources that are an exception to the standards are noise sources for the purpose of emergency notification, warning devices, and train horns. The noise ordinance also specifies that construction activities are to be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to noon on weekends or holidays.

30

Berkeley, City of, Municipal Code Section 13.40.



The discussion below briefly describes potential noise impacts that could occur as a result of short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed project. Short-Term Impacts. Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of earthmovers such as bulldozers and scrapers, loaders and graders, water trucks, and other trucks. No pile driving is proposed. The project site is located in a commercial area of West Berkeley that includes residential, office, and commercial uses. The City of Berkeley requires all development projects to adhere to a standard set of conditions of approval for construction projects to mitigate potential noise impacts that could result from construction activities. Selection of specific standard conditions is contingent upon various factors, including the size and type of development proposed and the surrounding land uses that could be potentially affected. Long-Term Impacts. The project site is located in a busy commercial area and the most significant noise source in the vicinity is vehicle traffic on University and Shattuck Avenues. Operation period noise impacts could occur with the expansion store hours, exposing existing and future noise-sensitive uses, including residential uses, to higher noise levels, but none that exceed the General Plan’s noise contour map. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise

levels? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Please refer to Section XII.a. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels

existing without the project? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Please refer to Section XII.a. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Please refer to Section 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? (No Impact)

The project site is located over 11 miles north of Oakland International Airport (the nearest airport) and 15 miles northeast of San Francisco International Airport. While aircraft noise is occasionally audible on the project site, due to the distance from area airports and the orientation of runways and flight patterns, the project site does not lie within the 55 dBA CNEL noise contours of any airport. Therefore, the impact of noise levels from aviation sources would be less than significant.



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? (No Impact)

The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip.31

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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)?

� � � �

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

� � � �

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

� � � �

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)? (No Impact)

The project does not include the construction of new dwelling units nor does it include any construction involving city infrastructure. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere? (No Impact) Please refer to Section XIII(a). c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing

elsewhere? (No Impact) Please refer to Section XIII(a) .

31




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

� � � �

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? (No Impact)

The project does not involve the construction or alteration government facilities; therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in additional environmental effects that would result from the need to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public service.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

� � � �

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? (No Impact)

The proposed project proposes to add additional retail floor area to the existing mini-mart and is not expected to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. 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? (No Impact)

The project does not include or require the construction or expansion of existing public recreational facilities; therefore, development of the proposed project and associated recreational opportunities for use by project residents would not result in additional environmental effects beyond those described in this document.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

� � � �

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?

� � � �

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

� � � �

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

� � � �

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

� � � �

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? (No Impact)

The proposed project would not generate new vehicular and truck traffic in the area and will not increase existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The project complies with existing parking requirements.



b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (No Impact)

The proposed project does not include the alteration to the existing vehicular, emergency, pedestrian, and bicycle access to and through the site. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in

location that result in substantial safety risks? (No Impact) The project site is located approximately 11 miles from Oakland International Airport. The proposed project would not result in the construction of buildings that would be sufficiently high enough or configured in a way that would affect air traffic patterns. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial safety risk associated with a change in air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact) The proposed project does not alter the existing vehicular, emergency, pedestrian, and bicycle access to and through the site. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact) Please refer to Section XVI.d. f) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (No Impact) The project is limited to the addition of floor area at an existing site and complies with the City’s General Plan as well as the West Berkeley Area Plan. Therefore the project will not conflict with adopted policies plans or programs as described above.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

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

� � � �

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?

� � � �

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?

� � � �

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

� � � �

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?

� � � �

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

� � � �

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

� � � �

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

Board? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The City’s sewer system is connected to trunk lines which convey flows to East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD’s) wastewater interceptors, which direct flows to EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) in the City of Oakland. The proposed project does not include any new uses that would increase the existing wastewater generated on the site and would not exceed the capacity of the MWWTP. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control



Board, San Francisco Bay Region (Water Board). In addition, EBMUD requires that commercial and industrial sewer system users obtain a waste discharge permit.32

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? (No Impact)

Development of the proposed project on an existing commercial site would not substantially increase water demand or wastewater generation at the project site such that new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required to serve the proposed project. c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant)

Please see Section IX.e for a discussion of stormwater drainage facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and

resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (No Impact) Please refer to Section XVII,a. The proposed project would not exceed the water supplies that exist for the site.

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? (No Impact)

Please refer to Section XVII,a. The proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment system. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste

disposal needs? (No Impact) Development of the proposed project on an existing commercial site would not substantially increase waste demand or generation at the project site such that new or expanded landfill facilities would be required. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact) The proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and/or regulations related to solid waste.

32

East Bay Municipal Utility District, 2010. EBMUD Wastewater Discharge Permit Standard Terms and Conditions. Website: www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/STC%207-10.pdf (accessed July 11, 2011). July.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

� � � �

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.)

� � � �

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

� � � �

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? (Less-Than Significant Impact)

As discussed in Section IV, development of the proposed project would not: 1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 2) cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 3) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or 4) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. As discussed in Section V, the proposed project site is located less than 1,000 feet away from the Shellmound (City of Berkeley Landmark #227, CAALA #307). Implementation of the City’s standard conditions of approval adopted via the West Berkeley Project Draft EIR will reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. 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.) (Less Than Significant Impact)

The City’s standard conditions of approval for construction limit impacts to geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and hazards and hazardous materials and ensure that the effect of the project would



be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the context of impacts associated with other pending and/or planned development projects. These impacts are typical of infill development projects and would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the standard conditions of approval instituted by the city for all construction projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on

human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less Than Significant Impact) Please refer to Section XVIIi,b.



REPORT PREPARATION

A. PREPARERS

City of Berkeley 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Claudine Asbagh, Assistant Planner

B. REFERENCES

Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003. ABAG Earthquake Liquefaction Hazard Maps, North and South Hayward Fault Segments. Website: www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickmapliq.pl (accessed June 21, 2011).

Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003. Earthquake Shaking Hazard Map, Berkeley/North Hayward Segment of the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault System. Website: quake.abag.ca.gov/shaking/ maps/ (accessed June 21, 2011).

Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. Projections and Priorities 2009. December.

ASTM International, 2005. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, Method E1527-05.

Bay Area Air Quality management District, 2011. CEQA Guidelines (Table 3-1). May.


Berkeley, City of, 2002. Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the City of Berkeley General Plan. Website: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=48023 (accessed June 27, 2011). April.

Berkeley, City of, 2006. Ordinance No. 6,905-N.S., amending Ordinance 6,321-N.S. March 9.

Berkeley, City of, 2007. City of Berkeley Area Coordinators. Website: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ police/department/beatinfo/Line%20ups/AreaCoord0107.pdf (accessed July 11, 2011). January.

Berkeley, City of, 2009. Berkeley Downtown Area Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. April.

Berkeley, City of, 2011. Berkeley’s Fire Districts. Website: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ uploadedFiles/IT/Level_3_-_General/FireDistricts1.pdf (accessed July 12).

Berkeley, City of, 2011. City of Berkeley Fire Department NFPA Analysis Report (01-01-2010 to 12/31/2010). Website: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Fire/Level_3_-_General/2010%20annual.pdf (accessed July 12).

Berkeley, City of, Municipal Code Section 13.40.

Berkeley, City, of, 2011. Municipal Code, Title 23, Zoning Ordinance. Updated May 3.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22 CCR Division 4.5.

California Code of Regulations, Title 8 CCR 1532.1.



California Department of Conservation, 2009. Alameda County Williamson Act Lands 2009 (map). Website: ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Map%20and%20PDF/ Alameda/AlamedaWA_09_10.pdf (accessed July 1, 2011).

California Department of Conservation, 2010. California Geological Survey – Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones in Electronic Format. Website: www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ ap_maps.htm (accessed June 21, 2011).

California Department of Conservation, 2011. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Alameda County Important Farmland 2010 (map). Website: www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm (accessed July 1).

California Department of Finance, 2011. Table 2: E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010-2011, with 2010 Benchmark. Website: www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php (accessed July 8). May.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2011. Jurisdiction Profile for City of Berkeley. Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/profiles/Juris/ (accessed July 22).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2011. California Waste Stream Profiles: Facilities. Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/profiles/Facility/Landfill/ (accessed July 22).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2006. Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Soil Contamination as a Result of Lead from Lead-Based Paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Termiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Electrical Transformers. June 9 (Revised).

California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway System. Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed July 1).

California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2010. Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity. May 21.

California Geological Survey, 2003. Seismic Hazard Zonation Map, Oakland West. Website: gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/html/pdf_maps_no.html (accessed June 21, 2011). February 14.

East Bay Municipal Utility District, 2009. Annual Report 2009. December.

East Bay Municipal Utility District, 2010. EBMUD Wastewater Discharge Permit Standard Terms and Conditions. Website: www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/STC%207-10.pdf (accessed July 11, 2011). July.

East Bay Municipal Utility District, 2011. Commercial Pollution Prevention Program. Website: www.ebmud.com/for-customers/commercial-waste-treatment/commercial-pollution-prevention-program (accessed July 11).

East Bay Municipal Utility District, 2011. Urban Water Management Plan 2010. June.

East Bay Municipal Utility District, 2011. Wastewater Treatment. Website: www.ebmud.com/ wastewater/online_tour (accessed July 11).

East Bay Municipal Utility District, 2011. Water Treatment Plants. Website: www.ebmud.com/ ccs/crr/WSE_ DailyReport.asp (accessed July 11).

East Bay Municipal Utility District, 2011.EBMUD Daily Water Supply Report. Website: ebmud.com/daily-water-supply-report (accessed July 10).



Environmental Data Resources, 2010. The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, Inquiry Number: 2752577.2s. April 22.

Equity Residential, Kirk E. Peterson & Associates Architects. 2011. Acheson Commons project plan set. February 2.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2011. Stay Dry v2.0 data for Berkeley, California. Website: hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/NFHLWMSkmzdownload (accessed June 28, 2011).

LSA Associates, Inc., 2001. City of Berkeley Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report. February.

National Geographic Holdings, Inc., 2001. Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM.

Port of Oakland, 2006. Oakland International Master Plan. Website: www.flyoakland.com/ masterplan_oak/support_documents.shtml (accessed June 22, 2011) March.

State Water Resources Control Board, 2011. Geotracker. Website: geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.

U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, 2006. Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States. Website: earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/ (accessed June 23, 2011).

C. COMMUNICATIONS

Berkeley Fire Department, 2011. Steven Riggs. Written communication with City of Berkeley Planning Department. August 31.

Cecilio Felix, 2011. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. Personal communication with Baseline Environmental Consulting. July 5.

Berkeley Police Department, 2011. Erik Upson. Written communication with City of Berkeley Planning Department. September 26.



This page intentionally left blank.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial …...2013/03/28 · California Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial …...2013/03/28 · California Environmental...