Jennifer Lawrence Principal Planner Environmental & Long ... · Jennifer Lawrence Principal Planner Environmental & Long Range ... environmental review process under the California

Office of the City Manager October 15, 2003 Jennifer Lawrence Principal Planner Environmental & Long Range Planning Capital Projects 1936 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94720 Re: Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report: UC Berkeley 2020 Long Range Development Plan and Chang-Lin Tien Center for East Asian Studies Dear Ms. Lawrence: This letter is the City of Berkeley’s response to the University’s Notice of Preparation (“NOP”), referenced above. The City of Berkeley appreciates this opportunity to identify issues it believes should be analyzed in the Long Range Development Plan (“LRDP”) environmental impact report (“EIR”). It submits these comments in the hope that they will help the University design and carry out an environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that identifies all relevant significant impacts, identifies and considers the full range of mitigation measures and a reasonable range of appropriate alternatives, and ensures that all mitigations are implemented and carefully monitored over the life of the LRDP. In past years, the University and the City have often found themselves in the position of having a frank and direct discussion of mitigation measures or alternatives only after the final EIR is completed and the Regents have certified it and approved the project in question. The most notable example of this was in 1991, when the last LRDP was adopted, although there have been a number of subsequent examples. Over the past several months, and specifically with respect to the LRDP, senior staff from the University and the City have agreed that this is not a good model for future interagency discussions, and that it would be preferable for a full discussion of impacts and mitigations to occur as part of the environmental review process, rather than after that process is complete. The following comments on the Notice of Preparation are submitted in that spirit.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7000 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7099 E-mail: [email protected]

Response to Notice of Preparation: 2020 LRPD & Tien Center October 15, 2003 Page 2

As we see it, the first step in the process we jointly envision is for the City to provide a full statement of its concerns and the issues it believes must be addressed in the LRDP EIR. We would be happy to meet with University staff (and/or consultants) to elaborate on these comments or provide additional information, to the extent it is available. The next step would be for the City and the University to agree (if possible) on specific alternatives and measures to be included in the draft EIR before it is released for review and comment. As the University is aware, once a draft EIR is released for public review, it is much more difficult, both legally and practically, to add significant analyses to it, because of the risk that such analyses will trigger recirculation. We have therefore included in this letter proposed alternatives and mitigation measures we believe should be included in the draft EIR, and invite the University to discuss these with City staff. We have also attached a memorandum from the City’s consultant, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), which focuses on mitigation measures for fiscal impacts resulting from LRDP growth.1 In proposing mitigation measures, we have been careful to limit ourselves to measures the City would actually be likely to undertake; for instance, we have not suggested significantly widening existing roads serving the campus and its adjoining neighborhoods. Thus, this letter represents the City’s formal statement of its willingness to work closely with the University, through the environmental review process or otherwise, to devise an implementation plan and schedule for each proposed mitigation measure involving the City. Of course, we would be happy to meet with University staff concerning the matters discussed in the EPS memorandum as well. With respect to mitigation of impacts, we urge the University to consider an approach the City recently used with Alta Bates Summit Medical Center. This approach replaces devising specific measures to mitigate predicted impacts with adopting performance standards that the project sponsor commits to achieving over the long term. Under both approaches, the EIR analyzes the likelihood and severity of specific impacts. But instead of relying on specific mitigation measures of uncertain feasibility and efficacy, the City’s approach would require the University to (1) state clearly the level of impacts it expects to result from the LRDP, (2) commit to ongoing monitoring, and (3) employ whatever mitigation measures are necessary at the time the acceptable impact level is exceeded, to reduce the impact to the level specified in the EIR. The

1 While the City is actively analyzing the LRDP’s fiscal impacts on the City, it has been significantly handicapped in this effort by the NOP’s lack of specificity and the University’s failure, to date, to provide requested information. In particular, we have not received information specifying projects identified in the 1990 LRDP or subsequently approved by the University. Accurate and consistent information describing existing and approved “development,” including all of the land and improvements that the University currently owns, operates, or leases, is critical for valid analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. This information is also necessary to describe the required No Project alternative. Thus, it has been impossible to reach any conclusions in time to include them in these comments, as we had hoped. However when the University provides the necessary information, we will conduct our analysis and apprise the University of our conclusions.


benefits of this approach are that it does not rely on (necessarily inaccurate) predictions about impacts and mitigations 10 or 15 years hence.2 The City recognizes that this approach may not be appropriate for all types of impacts, but it is appropriate for operational impacts such as traffic, parking, noise, sewage collection, etc. Finally, we believe that the adequacy of the EIR will depend on the use of valid information about existing conditions and trends in the City. In particular, the University will need to obtain a significant amount of information concerning permitted and projected land uses (other than University projects), infrastructure, and numerous other matters, from the City. Because of the range and complexity of the information required, the information gathering process could become burdensome for the University. Accordingly, to facilitate this process and ensure that the information provided is valid, I have assigned Grace Maguire3 to be the single point of contact for the University for all information needs related to preparation of the EIR. General Comments Please provide an opportunity for additional comment on a more detailed Project Description prior to release of the DEIR. The lack of detail in the description of the Long Range Development Plan makes it extremely difficult to make recommendations regarding the scope of CEQA analysis. Please provide more detailed information when the LRDP alternatives are more developed, and offer an opportunity for additional comment before release of the draft EIR. Please explain the sequence and timing of major project milestones. The NOP does not make clear when an LRDP Project Description with enough detail to allow analysis of environmental impacts will be made public. The NOP states: “The Draft EIR will be presented to the public and relevant governmental agencies for review and comment, and those comments will then be taken into consideration in preparing the Final EIR. The 2020 LRDP and the Final EIR must be approved by the Regents of the University of California before the 2020 LRDP program and Tien Center project may be implemented.” (NOP, p. 6.) Please include consultation with the City in each phase of the project, and clarify major project milestones. The EIR should clearly distinguish between its analysis of the program (i.e., LRDP) and of the project (i.e, the Chang-Lin Tien Center). It should also explain clearly how the two analyses relate to each other. Of particular importance, both with respect to the Tien Center and in general, the EIR should establish a standard methodology and terminology for measuring the additional population resulting from UC projects. Measures such as “full-time equivalents” (FTE) are not useful, for instance, in assessing traffic impact, which are caused by individuals, not FTEs. While the City recognizes the value of FTEs as an input into campus space planning

2 This approach might require that enrollment increases be phased with implementation of mitigation measures. Doing so might itself be considered a mitigation measure. 3 Ms. Maguire can be reached at [email protected] or 981- 7008.

mailto:[email protected]


needs, a single FTE consisting of a full-time employee or student will make fewer automobile trips (and rent less housing) than an FTE made up of three part-time employees or students.4 A valid methodology and consistent terminology is especially critical in this EIR, because the LRDP does not propose specific construction projects, but area-wide population and square footage caps (“capacity envelopes”). Accordingly, the program analysis in the EIR will rely largely on a generic analysis of the impacts of numbers of people or square feet of building, rather than a specific number of people in specific buildings. In order for the program analysis of the EIR to be meaningful, it must be commensurable with future project-specific analyses. Thus the EIR must establish consistent methodology and terminology that will be used throughout the LRDP period, otherwise it could lead to public confusion and renewed interagency and community suspicions.5 The Notice of Preparation states that the LRDP will guide future capital investment. (NOP, p. 5.) The EIR must describe how it will be so used. For instance, will it be used as a general guideline from which the University may vary more or less at will, or will it be more comparable to binding regulations? Presumably, the correct answer is somewhere in between. How closely the University will comply with the LRDP will significantly affect the degree to which agencies and the public can rely on the EIR as a predictive document.6 The NOP (p. 6) states that projects undergoing CEQA review during the pendency of the current LRDP EIR will be analyzed for consistency with the 2020 LRDP and their relationship to it clearly described. Given the amount of construction approved and undertaken by the University in the last few years, much of which is still to begin, it is difficult to envision additional projects that are both “urgent” and that the University will actually be able to commence prior to adoption of the 2020 LRDP. In any case, such projects must also be analyzed for consistency with the existing LRDP, and environmental review of those projects must address existing conditions

4 The EIR should provide real numbers for all categories of persons on campus (such as outside vendors and contractors) and should not ignore the additional burdens created by those persons simply because they are difficult to count. 5 For instance, despite its certification of a number of EIRs that purport to demonstrate that the 1990 LRDP EIR’s analysis were still current years later, and that subsequent projects were within the scope of that LRDP, very few people in the affected community actually believe this to be the case. The University should make every effort to cure this lack of trust in it as a public institution by making the analysis in this EIR transparent. Along the same lines, the forthcoming EIR should not assume that development since 1990 has complied with the LRDP or that its actual impacts were adequately analyzed and mitigated in the 1990 EIR. 6 Related to this, the project objectives in the EIR should be meaningful and correspond with the policies and goals of the LRDP. This will help other agencies and the public evaluate the University’s compliance with the LRDP and the LRDP EIR over time. The ability to do so is particularly important given the LRDP’s reliance on “capacity envelopes.”


(plus cumulative impacts), and may not be based on environmental assumptions in the as-yet-to-be-certified 2020 LRDP EIR. The NOP states that the demand for student services is expected to grow in type, quality, and quantity (p. 11). The EIR should include a glossary for terms such as “student services” so that the lay reader can understand what is included in the definition of such terms as this, as well as others. Throughout the Initial Study (e.g., NOP, p. 29), the University states that it is exempt from local land use plans and regulations. Although this may be true, it does not necessarily exempt the University from analyzing its conformance or lack thereof with local policies under CEQA. Given the potential impacts the University’s LRDP may have on the City’s General Plan and other relevant local land use policies, it is essential that the University consider these impacts in its deliberations on the LRDP, regardless of whether it is subject to local land use plans and regulations. Local plans and regulations are in place for the health, safety and welfare of the community and for its orderly and rational development. They reflect the community’s articulation of its perception of the general welfare. For these reasons the University’s development plans must be analyzed in terms of the City’s plans in order to accomplish the basic purposes of CEQA. To neglect this analysis would be to neglect significant environmental issues that are appropriately addressed in a program-level EIR.7 Finally, we urge the University to allow 60 days for public review of the draft EIR, and to release the final EIR well before the Regents are scheduled to act on the LRDP. In the past, final EIRs on a number of projects have been released to the public and interested agencies only a very few days before the Regents were scheduled to (and did) act. While we acknowledge that CEQA does not require any particular period for public review of final EIRs, it seems unnecessary and contrary to the spirit of informed self-government to schedule the release of the final EIR in a manner that effectively denies citizens and other agencies the opportunity to communicate their concerns. This is especially so when the key issues relate to proposed mitigation programs. Our specific comments, section by section, follow. Project Context We are pleased to see that the University intends to “coordinate with LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory] to present the combined effects of both LRDPs.” (NOP, p. 7.) We assume that this means that both EIRs will include the other LRDP as a project contributing to cumulative impacts and that both EIRs will use the same data and assumptions about baseline conditions, as well as other projects that need to be considered in their analyses of cumulative impacts, so that analyses of impacts and mitigation measures are directly comparable. In

7 Moreover, if development under the LRDP will not conform to tthe City’s land use regulations, the University’s reliance on the City’s General Plan EIR is suspect, since that EIR assumes development consistent with the General Plan.


addition, both EIRs should use the same terminology and methodology for the same kinds of impacts. Finally, since both projects are under the jurisdiction of the Regents, we would expect that the analysis in each EIR of ways to mitigate cumulative impacts resulting from the other LRDP would be correspondingly more detailed, and that neither EIR would state that mitigation of such impacts are infeasible because they are within the jurisdiction of a different agency. While the need to coordinate with LBNL is noted on page 7 of the NOP, the discussion of the analysis of cumulative impacts (NOP, p. 38) does not explicitly mention the LBNL LRDP as an important element of the cumulative analysis. For purposes of defining the scope of LBNL’s new LRDP, the University should use the most recent NOP issued by LBNL, which we understand will be issued within a few weeks. Project Scope The CEQA Guidelines require the NOP to “provide the responsible agencies with sufficient information describing the project and the potential environmental effects to enable the Responsible Agencies to make a meaningful response.” (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15082, (a) (1).) This information must include the location of the project. However Figure 2, the map that presents the areas most affected by the University’s LRDP, cannot be read. It is necessary for those reviewing this and future documents that these areas be clearly delineated in order to consider the impacts on the community. The City recommends that in addition to this single map, each zone be broken into its own figure so that those reading the EIR can understand the boundaries of potentially affected areas. The NOP (p. 7) defines the “Housing Zone” but does not illustrate it. Based on the definition, the Housing Zone would appear to be a network (of uncertain geographical size) with numerous nodes. The EIR should provide more information about this zone, including some sort of illustration, and information about impacts throughout it from additional LRDP housing demand. Moreover, the description indicates that housing must be within one block of a transit line. The City is concerned by the lack of information in this description of the area to be considered. For example, is it the intent that housing could be located anywhere along a transit line, or are there additional criteria related to distance to actual transit stops or stations? Does the University intend to take service frequency into account? Will the LRDP or its EIR make assumptions about improved transit travel time in the future, or will it rely on current service levels? The City believes that the limitation to “a block” to BART stations may be unnecessarily restrictive. Each of these issues regarding the location of the housing zone should be explicitly addressed in the LRDP and its EIR. In addition, the NOP (pp. 12-13) does not sufficiently explain that the so-called “housing zone” would overlap various other land use zones (such as “adjacent blocks” and “Southside”). More importantly, major questions are raised by the extent of the “housing zone” itself, which is proposed as the area “within a mile of the center of campus, or within a block of a transit line providing trips to campus in under 20 minutes.” The simplistic one-mile radius would, for example, almost reach Ashby Avenue. That distance is too great for convenient daily travel by foot.


In sum, the NOP does not clearly demarcate either the Housing Zone or the Other Berkeley Sites capacity envelopes. The University should be certain that the EIR clearly describes location, existing land uses and existing population, employment and housing baselines for these areas, as well as the existing land uses, population, employment and housing baselines for all other areas shown in Figure 2 of the NOP. Project Description Drivers for Growth The NOP states that projected enrollment increases are being driven by the Master Plan for Higher Education. (NOP, p. 9.) The EIR should thus also include enough information about the Master Plan for Higher Education, so that the reader can fully understand what its implications are – and are not – for UC Berkeley.8 On the same page, the NOP also states that the University’s research program, which “is fundamental to [its] mission… must be supported by adequate capital investments.” However capital investment to support research does not necessarily entail population growth, since presumably some research terminates as other research begins. Does the LRDP call for a net increase in population and employment from these research-related capital investments, even after taking into account the observed rates at which research projects start and end? The EIR should clearly explain the relationship, if any, of capital investment for research and population growth at the University.

The NOP (p. 9) also states “UC Berkeley has been requested to evaluate its ability to accommodate an increase of 4,000 students over the base year 1998.” This suggests that the actual enrollment increase UC Berkeley will be required to accommodate may well be less than 4,000 students. The EIR should clarify this issue, and specifically should clarify the types of constraints that would be recognized as a basis for accommodating fewer new students. Finally, in this connection, the EIR should analyze the University’s ability to accommodate existing students (and faculty and staff). Since the NOP acknowledges that facilities are overcrowded now, it would seem that current enrollment is not adequately accommodated. Thus the EIR should not assume that existing students are adequately accommodated now. Population The intent of Table 1 is unclear. Is it the intent of Table 1 to indicate that the University will not exceed the numbers in each category (e.g., faculty, academic staff, etc.), or does it establish an overall headcount with flexibility permitted within each of the categories of people? For example, the table says that there will be a maximum number of faculty of 1,980. Does the plan envision that there can be a trade off with “Academic staff” so that the maximum head-count is

8 The same applies to the Strategic Academic Plan. (NOP, p. 10.) To the extent the University is claiming that this plan drives growth or the LRDP, it should include all material aspects of that plan.


not exceeded, but the faculty can grow to 2,100? This question is important because each of the categories may have differing characteristics and impacts. Moreover, many of the off-campus programs that are specifically excluded from this table currently, or may in the future, occupy space that the University owns or leases within Berkeley. With the closure of the Laguna Street campus in San Francisco, for example, the U.C. Extension headcount may well increase. Finally, the NOP (p. 10) leaves it unclear whether its “campus headcount” includes all organized research units that are or would be in fact part of the campus community. For example, does Table 1’s relatively moderate increase in “nonacademic staff” actually omit some kinds of organized research units that are independent in a narrow technical sense? For purposes of environmental analysis it is essential to consider the impacts of all students, staff, and other persons associated with University programs on or near the central campus. As noted elsewhere in this letter, those programs, such as the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, must be included in the evaluation of cumulative impacts. Program Space The EIR needs greater clarity on the LRDP’s accounting system of space for land uses. The City believes that bed spaces and parking spaces should also be accounted for in terms of gross square footage (GSF) so that the physical impact of built space in these land use categories can be estimated more directly. For example, the NOP states on p. 12, “Up to 200 of the proposed new bed spaces [out of 2,600 bed spaces as shown in Table 2] may be designated for faculty or staff.” Later, in Table 3 of the NOP on p. 13, it is stated that these 2,600 bed spaces are intended for the Housing Zone capacity envelope and includes “up to 100 family-suitable units for faculty and/or staff.” “Bed spaces” are not a typical unit for describing housing units, so City staff interprets the ratio of bed spaces to units as 2 beds per unit. However, family-suitable units need to be of sufficient square footage to be attractive to prospective University-affiliated families. The EIR should make clear what the conversion of bed spaces and parking spaces to square footage of built space will be, in order to fully disclose the estimated maximum new space by zone, as described initially in the NOP, Table 3. A lengthy body of CEQA case law makes clear that the path and method of analysis provided in EIRs should be readily accessible and intelligible to lay readers. Table 3 only describes three types of land use--academic and support space, housing, and parking. In fact, each of these categories will probably encompass a wide variety of activities and types of development with a comparably broad range of impacts. The Initial Study fails, for example, to mention the activities and development that will be required to maintain the additional academic, office, parking, and housing facilities. The City's zoning regulations do not, for example, permit corporation yard functions, including the maintenance, storage, and fueling of vehicles, in the residential or commercial areas surrounding the Campus Park because such activities are generally incompatible with the uses in these districts. The EIR must, at a minimum, distinguish among different types of land use in order to adequately assess the project's impacts. If specific locations are not identified, it may be appropriate to include as


mitigation a series of performance and locational standards crafted to avoid conflict between new development and activities and the anticipated surrounding land uses based on General Plan policies. The EIR should also acknowledge that vacated space is not simply used to “relieve overcrowding.” (NOP, pp. 11, 14.) If space is overcrowded now, it became overcrowded for a reason. Unless the University can point to some new factor that will prevent future overcrowding, it is only reasonable to assume – and unreasonable not to assume – that both new space and vacated space will also eventually become overcrowded, especially given the pressures on UC to increase enrollment. Thus, the EIR should provide realistic assessments of the intensity of the use of both new space and vacated space. How does Table 2 address the demolition of existing space not owned by the University that is to be acquired by the University and replaced? Is the demolished space that is to be replaced part of the 2.2 million square feet figure, or does “net” mean only space the University intends to build that is above and beyond that to be demolished and replaced? For example, if the University were to demolish and rebuild 500,000 square feet of space not currently occupied by the University over the next 15 years, would that demolished and rebuilt space be included in the 2.2 million “net square feet,” or would the actual amount of University construction be 2.7 million net square feet? Because the impacts of space occupied by the University may be different from those occupied by other organizations, individuals and businesses, the question of how much space is to be demolished and replaced is a critical issue for environmental review and must be clarified in the EIR.9 This issue points out the continuing difficulty of estimating impacts absent a set of possible locations for future development. As noted elsewhere in this document, the City urges the University to identify within the LRDP or its EIR possible sites for development based on some set of reasonable criteria. The NOP does not state clearly how many of the proposed programs to be housed at the Tien Center for East Asian Studies are new programs versus existing ones housed on campus. The EIR needs to make clear the distinctions between new and existing programs so that the relationship between the environmental baseline and the proposed project is clear. This extends to how much of the overall 450,000 GSF of program space (NOP, p. 11) will be absorbed by the Tien Center project. The EIR should state clearly the Tien Center’s ability to absorb this space deficit from existing space needs on and adjacent to campus. In addition, because existing operations/staff will be relocated from other sites to the Tien Center needs to also speak to the status of the sites from which the operations/staff are being moved. If those vacated sites will be reoccupied, are they still acknowledged in the baseline? Will the vacated sites be refurbished to increase concentration of use? Finally, the EIR needs to assess the impact of proposals to either renovate or relocate the University Art Museum and the Pacific Film Archive. Aside from the aesthetic issues related to

9 And of course, the impacts of constructing 2.7 million square feet of space would be greater than the impacts of constructing 2.2 million.


removal of a “landmark” structure (albeit one that may not qualify for designation based on its age), this decision has transportation/circulation implications. Housing and Parking In analyzing housing impacts and mitigations, the EIR must consider any housing that is lost as a result of the LRDP, as well as any housing that is built. The NOP (pp. 12-13) states that no more than 200 units (or beds?) of the new housing would be for faculty and/or staff. This may be quite insufficient. The EIR should analyze housing needs from the LRDP and include mitigation measures/alternatives that are calibrated to those needs. The NOP indicates that “the demand for parking today is greater than the supply” and that “more parking near campus is required to ensure full access to its programs, resources and intellectual life.” The City believes that these statements are fundamentally misconceived. To some degree, demand is a function of price. The higher the price – and the more reasonable “substitutes” (e.g. transit) are available – the lower the demand. We are very concerned by the manner in which this issue is framed. The University’s intent in regard to this issue is clarified further by the lack of consideration of a “transit oriented alternative” in the alternatives section (NOP, p. 16). The University refers to a “reduced or no new university parking” alternative that continues to assume reliance on “non-university parking” to accommodate some undefined level of demand, rather than an “enhanced transit availability” (or Transportation Demand Management) alternative which might be combined with less parking. This issue is discussed in detail in the “Transportation” section below. The anticipated 30% increase in the demand for parking spaces shown in Table 2 requires further explanation particularly in light of the 32% increase in housing. Presumably, one of the reasons for increasing housing near campus is to reduce parking demand. Land Use Zones The NOP states that the LRDP provides for “capacity envelopes” as zones of LRDP construction activity. The City requests that the EIR present an analysis of how many properties in each capacity envelope are actually owned now by the University versus what might have to be acquired from current private owners. The NOP suggests (although it is not clear) that the University may exceed the LRDP “capacity envelope” in any given zone. (NOP, Table 3, note.) This seems unnecessary – it would be more appropriate simply to provide for (or at least assume for EIR purposes) a higher “capacity envelope.” The whole purpose of the “capacity envelope” approach would appear to be to provide flexibility for specific projects. Why then is it necessary to build in additional flexibility for the capacity envelopes themselves? If, on the other hand, the NOP means that the LRDP


total proposed 2.2 million GSF may be exceeded, the question takes on even greater significance.10 Since the LRDP proposes up to the maximum GSF shown in Table 3 for each Land Use Zone, the EIR must analyze the impacts of the maximum permissible development in each zone, even though the total development ultimately allowed may be less than the sum of the maximum permitted in each zone. The reason for this is that the LRDP and the EIR’s analysis will form the basis for all future individual development projects in each zone for the term of the LRDP. Since these documents might be used to support (for instance) 800,000 GSF of new development in the Adjacent Blocks -West, the EIR must analyze the impacts of that amount of development in that area. The same logic applies for each zone. The NOP (p. 12) states: “90-100% of future space demand in academic and support programs is planned to be accommodated on the Campus Park or its Adjacent Blocks.” This raises at least two questions the EIR should address: where is space demand for other programs “planned to be accommodated?” And, where would the up-to-10% of other such space demand be accommodated? Design Framework The City appreciates the University’s concern with its design framework and its commitment to “respect and enhance the city’s unique character and livability” and to seek “initiatives that strengthen the synergy of city and campus, and support the cultural and economic vitality of downtown Berkeley.” The City agrees that there is a significant opportunity over the next 15 years to maintain and strengthen the physical connection between campus and City, and believes that such an initiative should not only focus on the downtown area, but improved campus interface at all of the edges of campus where it meets the City. However, as the University expands further into the City – as this LRDP clearly contemplates – it is important to recognize that University buildings must fit into and enhance what is fundamentally an urban environment, not seek to expand a “campus” into the City. The relationship of buildings to the street, the creation of high quality streetscapes and connections, the maintenance of vital, active street environments is critical to the health of the community. Creation of “stand alone” buildings isolated from one another and lacking in connection and street character will lead to dead spaces within the City and further isolate the University from the City, rather than integrate it into the community. The LRDP should address this issue with appropriate design guidelines for new buildings integrated into the City, and the EIR should address how the University will mitigate its impacts on community character, safety and other factors that are important elements of quality design.

10 In either case, the EIR should expressly state how substantial an exceedance must be before additional environmental review will be required, and how such exceedances will be measured, monitored and reported.


Environmental Impact Report Alternatives The NOP’s brief description of alternatives does not explain the thinking behind the choice of alternatives. The EIR must include all reasonable alternatives that address the LRDP’s potential significant impacts. Accordingly, the NOP must make clear the University’s preliminary thinking about which impacts are likely to be the most severe and which are the most likely to be amenable to avoidance or mitigation by alternatives. The NOP should also explain the University’s approach to feasibility of alternatives – i.e., why some are considered reasonable enough to be included in the EIR and why others are apparently not. As we have noted above, it is quite difficult to supplement an EIR’s analysis of alternatives in any meaningful way once the draft EIR is released for public comment. The NOP (p. 16) states that the EIR will include 8 alternatives, including the “No Project” alternative.11 While we appreciate the University’s inclusion of a “Reduced Enrollment Growth” alternative, we urge that it be based on realistic reduced enrollment growth, so that it is not infeasible by definition. As noted above, the EIR should explain the justification for the specific reduced enrollment under consideration. The “Limited Research Growth” alternative seems to assume that the total amount of research will grow due to the addition of new research projects, without accounting for the fact that existing research projects will eventually terminate at some point. As we have already noted, the EIR should not simply assume that every new research project requires a net increase in research space. (That is, we presume that existing research ceases over time.) Stated differently, the EIR should not assume that new research drives more growth than it actually does. This is an important issue in the context of an analysis of alternatives, because equating new research with new facilities will tend to lead to the conclusion that any alternative involving less new construction is infeasible because new research is a given. However it is not at all clear that this equation holds. The EIR may not simply make this assumption. The alternative involving research growth at the Richmond Field station appears to be infeasible at the outset, under Health and Safety Code Sections 222.2, 222.3 and 222.4, at least based on our understanding that the property exchange contemplated by those sections has taken, or is going to, take place. If this is in fact the case, the alternative should specify what locations other than the Richmond Field Station would be under consideration, especially if they might be in Berkeley. 11 We note that all 8 alternatives appear to refer only to the LRDP; there do not seem to be any alternatives for the Tien Center. However CEQA requires that the EIR analyze alternatives to both projects. Given the relative dearth of information in the NOP about the Tien Center, it is impossible in this letter to propose specific alternatives to that project. At a minimum the EIR should consider (in addition to the “no project” alternative) alternative locations, a smaller project and various design options.


It is not clear how the “Increased Research in Hill Campus” alternative would reduce environmental impacts, since this is a much more environmentally sensitive area, for a variety of well-known reasons. The EIR should not include “straw man” alternatives. On the other hand, analysis may show that changing the academic calendar to create a 12-month program might offer a real alternative by reducing the number of students, faculty, and associated personnel that would be on the campus at any given time. The same applies to the “Reduced or No New University Housing” alternative. One of the University’s major impacts on the surrounding area is demand for housing. Building housing mitigates this impact. To the contrary, the EIR should include an alternative that would provide more housing than currently proposed in the LRDP, not less. An alternative that provides for developing a substantial amount of housing close to transit at sites outside Berkeley, for example in the Uptown area of downtown Oakland, may be valid if information is included showing that this is a realistic and feasible option. As described elsewhere in this letter, the “Reduced or No New University Parking”, seems to be both a “straw man” (since it seems to assume private provision of additional parking, which is unlikely) and/or incomplete (because it does not address alternatives for reducing reliance on automobile trips to campus). This alternative should set high targets for reducing the use of single occupancy vehicles, in particular including Eco Pass type programs, such as the City’s Eco Pass program and the University’s class pass for students. (NOP, p. 35.)12 (Other measures could include creating bicycle lanes and other incentives in all areas of the campus so that students and staff can safely and easily travel by bicycle on the whole campus.) This is presumptively a reasonable alternative, since the University’s own New Century Plan calls for a 5% reduction in faculty/staff and student drive alone rates. The City believes it is essential that the EIR include a “no increase in parking/TDM/travel mode shift” alternative. To the degree that new parking is provided, the City recommends that the LRDP and EIR consider developing at least some of the proposed new parking at satellite locations, rather than in the near vicinity of campus. The EIR should also include, either as an alternative or as a variant for some or all alternatives, an analysis of prioritizing development of property it already owns or that has already been removed from the tax rolls. 12 Perhaps the NOP intended to indicate that this alternative also included aggressive measures to reduce vehicular circulation and avoid increased demand for parking. In that event this would appear to be an alternative designed to reduce environmental impacts rather than exacerbate them. The City strongly agrees that this is an alternative that should be considered.


Initial Study Aesthetics

The EIR should analyze possible impacts to the view corridors identified in the City’s General Plan and associated documents, as well as its street tree program, by future developments at the edges of Campus Park or off-site facilities. The City anticipates that the LRDP will include appropriate design guidelines and recommended streetscape improvements along public streets to address the aesthetic impacts of the University’s planned further encroachment into the City’s urban fabric. If it does not include such guidelines, then the City assumes that appropriate mitigations will be included in the EIR to address these impacts in the future. Historically, off-campus buildings by the University have not harmonized with the City’s urban design character. Although the most recent University projects have been more successful at integrating University functions into the city, the City believes that still more must be done to ensure that University buildings are not only functional for the University, but compatible with the existing city context, both visually and functionally. The DEIR should address the aesthetic impact of new or more heavily used pedestrian routes, and should propose mitigation in the form of streetscape improvements, in addition to addressing building form and function. In addition to aesthetic issues regarding scenic, visual, and historic resources, this section of the EIR must consider the impacts of substantial light and glare associated with use of the Memorial Stadium, as well as any proposed or foreseeable alterations to it. Finally, because of the lack of specificity regarding the location of development and proposed programs it is unclear whether the LRDP could adversely affect Strawberry and Claremont Canyons, two open space resources that have habitat value and are also important scenic resources for both Berkeley and Oakland residents. Air Quality While the NOP recognizes that the Bay Area is in non-attainment status in regard to particulates, it does not indicate how it will address the problem given that the air district does not have adequate air pollution data for Berkeley. We suggest that the following be considered in the EIR’s analysis of environmental impacts due to traffic:

• Ambient data in areas of heavy development to be measured in advance of project development. In this manner, the University can determine whether impacts will exceed significance standards;

• Cumulative impacts of traffic on air quality • Detailed information on number of proposed and current zero or near zero emission

vehicles.


Biological Resources The EIR analysis of development alternatives for the Hill Campus should address impacts on biological resources in a comprehensive manner. Incremental elimination or degradation of the unique habitats of the upper Berkeley hills should be addressed as a potential cumulative impact in the EIR. Potential mitigation of impacts should consider establishing a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other more comprehensive approach to mitigation, if such mechanisms are warranted to achieve appropriate levels of protection Cultural Resources It is not possible to determine what City of Berkeley historic resources may be affected by the proposed LRDP because no site-specific projects are identified, only areas where some undetermined or unspecified future development may have an impact. Some determination regarding potential sites to be affected by the LRDP would assist in a determination as to the magnitude of the impacts on cultural resources of the project. The NOP is also silent on the measures to be used to determine historic significance. The City believes that any project requiring the demolition of buildings that have been determined by the City to be landmarks or structures of merit, or any building on the State Historic Resource Inventory (SHRI) would be deemed to cause a significant impact on the environment, as required by CEQA Section 21084.1. These designated buildings in each sub-area should be identified. It is also assumed that any project that requires demolition of a designated building will require a separate EIR to be prepared because it is not possible to mitigate demolition of an historic resource. The City also requests that the University follow the same procedures as the City in making determinations regarding historic significance for structures older than 40 years of age which have not been assessed by the City for their historic significance. This implies a full historic analysis by a qualified consultant. The City requests that the University voluntarily agree to submit such studies to the City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission so that it may hold a public hearing and give interested parties an opportunity to be heard. The City has found that this process is very helpful in bringing forward useful information. Although the outcome of the public hearing would be informational and advisory only, it would allow for a more appropriate setting for considering critical historic preservation issues than a hearing before the Regents on the adequacy of a Negative Declaration or EIR, which is the only other formal opportunity the public would have to review these impacts. The City is unclear as to how the University intends to estimate the cumulative impacts on historic buildings and the impacts on the character and aesthetics of the community when specific sites are not identified. In many long range plans for well defined areas (as this is), there is at least some effort to identify “vulnerable sites” or “underutilized sites” or other sites subject to change over the course of the 15 year program. The City urges the University to present this information so that impacts can be better evaluated at this time, recognizing that opportunities change and that the sites identified may not be those that are eventually developed.


Geology, Seismicity and Soils Additional population (both daytime and resident) in proximity to the Hayward Fault and the wildlands of the East Bay Hills pose increased exposure of people and property to seismic and geological hazards. These issues are identified in the NOP. The City emphasizes that mitigation should describe how the University intends to assist the City in providing the services and infrastructure needed to reduce hazard exposure to a less-than-significant level and to be able to respond adequately in the event of geologic hazard event. The Initial Study fails to mention that large portions of the project area are located within areas that are subject to landslides and liquefaction, as shown on maps issued by the State in February 2003 under the State Seismic Hazards Act. The unique character of the seismic and other geologic hazards in the Berkeley area warrants special consideration. The main campus and perimeter sites are exposed to a level of seismic, geologic and fire hazards characterized by experts as California’s most vulnerable in an urban area. Mitigating this type of risk through performance-based construction and risk-sensitive land use would lessen the threat to people and facilities on the campus and in the immediate environs. The EIR should evaluate such mitigation measures. Hazardous Materials There have been spills from the sewer and water releases related to systems serving the University, as well as construction related accidents on University projects. These can result in cement rinsate, dust, chloramines, and sewage into creeks or the air. Such materials will have an adverse impact on the creek ecology. These impacts are associated with the Tien Center as well as other future development projects. The University should look at the contractual language for contractors and specify mitigations and penalties for air and water releases. Hydrology and Water Quality The Strawberry Creek watershed includes about a dozen tributary creeks that may be adversely affected by development under the LRDP. Activities in the Strawberry Creek watershed could have impacts on water quality in Strawberry Creek, which in turn could affect City property downstream, such as parks. Development near creeks may be subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or the State Department of Fish and Game. Mitigation measures should be crafted to ensure that there will be no impact on water quality in Strawberry Creek.13 Given the lack of specificity regarding the location of projects, the most appropriate form of mitigation may be a comprehensive management plan for the Strawberry Creek watershed that includes measures to maintain or improve water quality. It must be noted, however, that unless such a plan is specifically required to achieve specific water quality standards, it would not meet the legal requirements for mitigation measures.

13 The same comment applies to University development in other local watersheds.


In addition, as discussed under “Utilities and Service Systems,” below, development under the LRDP could have a significant and adverse impact on water quality. The EIR should fully analyze measures to reduce this impact. Land Use The Initial Study appended to the NOP includes question 8.b, “Does the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?” The University’s typical response (NOP p. 29) that it is not subject to local land use plans and regulations ignores possible conflicts with the City’s land use policies. But this does not mean that the University can ignore those policies to the extent of not considering them in the EIR. Local plans will inform the policies of the LRDP. Environmental impacts that may be mitigated or avoided should be considered even though the University is exempt from City land use controls. Even when the University is exempt from local controls, it is still subject to regulation by Federal and State agencies that require land use controls to mitigate environmental impacts. For example, projects involving clearing, grading, or excavation that causes soil disturbance on 5 or more acres or are part of a larger development plan on 5 or more acres are subject to Regional Water Quality Control Board permits that may require land use measures to ensure compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. In light of the City-University Memorandum of Understanding regarding development and implementation of the Southside Plan, the EIR needs to clarify the applicability of the Plan to University projects. Once adopted, the Plan will become part of the City’s General Plan. The MOU states that the Plan will “inform” the New Century Plan. Does this mean that the University will amend the New Century Plan to reflect the Southside Plan? Given the University’s role with respect to the Southside Plan, the EIR should assess the LRDP’s consistency with the Southside Plan and mitigate any inconsistencies. Because future development in the City should be consistent with the General Plan, the extent to which the LRDP is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan must be considered a potentially significant environmental impact despite the fact that the City has very limited, if any, jurisdiction over the project itself. For this reason, the City requests that the section of the EIR addressing consistency with local plans address consistency with the General Plan and its component Southside policies in detail, and propose mitigations to ensure that conflicts are avoided or minimized through appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigations proposed by the University can be consistent with and contribute to the implementation of the General Plan. For example, General Plan Policy T-35, Action A, calls for reduction of parking demand by implementing specific actions in the Downtown/Southside Transportation Demand Management Study (see Tier One, Tier Two, and Tier Three, pages 4-1 through 6-30). Implementation of some of these measures could contribute to mutually beneficial goals for the City and the University.


Noise Noise associated with the University (both ongoing activities and construction) has been a continuing problem for neighbors. The City requests that the analysis of noise impacts characterize the types of noise and the potential disruption of daily activities. Proposed mitigation should address both the qualitative and the quantitative impacts of noise. It is likely that noise mitigation will require extensive monitoring and enforcement, which should be funded by the University. If the University does not have any adopted standards that can serve as a basis for evaluating noise impacts, it would be appropriate to use the standards specified in the City’s Community Noise Ordinance (BMC Chapter 13.40). These standards can be used to evaluate the significance of noise impacts and to establish performance-based mitigation measures especially during the construction period. Population and Housing The NOP (¶10.b.) states that neither the LRDP nor the Tien Center will result in displacement of substantial numbers of housing or people. This may be true of the Tien Center, but given the geographic size and land use makeup of the “Adjacent Blocks” and the scale of development proposed in the LRDP, it would appear that there is evidence that the LRDP may result in displacement of substantial amounts of existing housing (and therefore people). The EIR should examine this issue. As requested in our letter of July 13, 2003, please use ABAG projections for employment and household growth. For population baseline, please use Berkeley’s population figure of 106,350 to reflect group quarters population missed by the Census Bureau in March 2000 enumeration efforts. In addition, the EIR should consider not only the direct impacts of University employment and residential growth, but also the indirect impacts. Certain types of employment growth, such as University employment, have especially strong “multiplier” effects within the economy and generate additional jobs (usually service jobs). Similarly, housing growth has indirect impacts on schools and services that should be considered. Public Services Fire Protection Based on the general description of the projects proposed and actual information about the projects already underway but included in the Plan (Areas A and G), the LRDP will have a significant impact on the Fire Department’s ability to provide fire protection services. This impact includes, but is not limited to, the ability of the Fire Department to respond to and control emergency events involving University properties, employees and students.


An analysis of fire incident volume at University buildings shows that just responses to building locations accounts for five-percent of the total incident volume for the Fire Department. There are many additional responses to outside areas on the campus, and student-only facilities or events throughout the city. Five-percent of the Fire Department operations budget amounts to over $1,000,000.00. The incident volume to the University will increase even if the campus population remains static. The increased building sizes, complex building systems (fire protection and detection equipment) and building uses will lead to an increased volume of fire incidents. Additional factors resulting from proposed designs will require specialized equipment for the Fire Department in order to maintain the current level of fire protection. Such factors include, but are not limited to: building height, underground and below grade construction; new processes and operations; the conversion of private property to University property; and modifications of access to and on the campus. Many buildings will be close to, if not in fact, high-rise type structures. However the Fire Department continues to be challenged by mid and high-rise structures due to equipment restrictions. A number of the projects include new underground or subterranean levels. Below grade construction creates special problems for firefighters requiring specialized equipment and training. Building uses and operations continue to change in campus buildings (the new micro-fabrication facility is an example) and the focus on the new and inventive technologies will require constant training and equipment upgrades for the Fire Department. Without these upgrades the Fire Department will not be able to provide the desired level of fire protection safely. Proposed new developments and “Research Centers” in the community could affect the direct funding of City operations, including the Fire Department, by removing properties from the tax rolls. The loss of tax revenues and combined with an increased need to provide fire protection is a losing proposition not only for the City and the Fire Department, but also for the University and its students, faculty, staff and property. At the present time, Fire Department access onto the campus is a challenge. With increased construction on the campus, maintaining required fire access is a major concern for the City. It is essential that the fire department be involved in the planning process for all construction projects to ensure that emergency access is maintained on the campus. Additionally, any road design changes or modifications that would affect emergency or fire vehicle access, (i.e. additions of traffic calming devices, barricades, detours, etc.) must include the Fire Department to ensure timely access and response onto the campus. It should also be noted that the LRDP’s proposal to create a “Pedestrian Campus” has the potential to compromise the Fire Department’s response times to the campus and its ability to provide fire services. In addition, new construction projects require evaluation of water supply and addition or relocation of hydrants. The Fire Department must be included in this review process to ensure appropriate fire protection is provided. (The Fire Department by state regulation is the authority for water supply.)


The LRDP calls for a significant amount of new development, all of which will require fire protection services from the City. The normal development review process includes an opportunity for the City’s Fire Department to review and approve plans, to ensure that adequate provision is made for fire safety. The development review process used by the University to date does not provide such an opportunity. As a result, the City’s ability to provide adequate fire protection services can be compromised. Accordingly, the City requests that the University formalize in its development review process for all developments under the LRDP an opportunity for Fire Department review and input to address:

1. Fire Department access (i.e. road width, entry points to buildings, knox box locations and keys, etc.);

2. Water supply: We appreciate the current positive working relation between the Fire Department and the University on fire access and water supply issues for existing and new University facilities. Since the last Long Range Development Plan, in cooperation with the Fire Department, the University has made substantial improvements to the campus water system. This cooperation should continue, and the University should continue with the water system improvement program;

3. The University should continue to provide fire protection systems in all facilities. Specifically, the Fire Department requests the installation of fire sprinkler systems in all new facilities, as well as a program to retrofit all existing campus facilities with fire sprinkler systems;

4. Location of Fire Department connections (to include 5” stortz fittings); 5. Provision of site plans for inclusion in the UC Map Books carried on all

apparatus; 6. Prior to occupancy of the building, provide a detailed list of the building use and

location of hazardous materials; 7. Location and design of Fire Control rooms; 8. The University should provide pre-planning, training, and tours for Fire

Department personnel, to familiarize them with the campus and off campus buildings. This should include fire protection equipment, chemical processes, storage and other life safety hazards;

9. The University invested in improvements of equipment and training for the Fire Department under the last Long Range Development Plan. The Fire Department would like to develop a new investment plan with the University that will allow the Department to meet the level of service the University is interested in maintaining. Only a fully funded investment program in equipment, special services and training for the Fire Department will maintain the desired level of service to the university.

Finally, because the types of buildings and uses at the University frequently demand different or additional services and equipment than most other development in the City, there should be a


process for determining future impacts of development under the LRDP on fire protection and disaster response services and a means to mitigate those impacts.

Schools The LRDP will clearly increase the number of school-age children using Berkeley schools. This impact should be quantified and measures devised to mitigate it.

Library Similarly, the additional enrollment, faculty and staff that the LRDP calls for will place additional demand on the City’s public library system. This impact should be quantified and measures devised to mitigate it. We would be happy to make staff from the Library available to discuss possible mitigations. Parks An increase in building density, student population and housing is likely to increase the use and maintenance requirements of the City parks and recreational facilities closest to the campus. The resulting physical impacts on these parks, as well as mitigation measures for those impacts, should be fully considered in the EIR. The LRDP identifies an increase in University housing for up to 2,600 people. The EIR should address impacts on recreational opportunities. Impacts of concern include increased use of existing recreational opportunities, accelerated wear on facilities that will increase both capital and maintenance expenditures, displacement of recreation facility users to other sites, and loss of open space. Transportation and Traffic As a threshold matter, basic analytical assumptions about such matters as parking turnover, vehicle occupancy and the relationship between parking supply/occupancy and traffic generation are fundamental to the EIR’s analysis of impacts and identification of mitigation measures. In recent discussions with University staff, the City was assured that there would be an opportunity for senior staff of each agency to discuss, and hopefully agree upon, these assumptions. Although this has not happened to date, the City still believes that it would be very useful and expresses its willingness to engage in such discussions. The “baseline” condition should be current conditions, as opposed to current conditions plus approved projects that have not yet been built or completed. The baseline condition can be measured, while “baseline plus assumed impacts” will necessarily be inaccurate. While the use of “Land Use Zones” (NOP, p. 7) may be reasonable for purposes of a gross analysis of population and housing impacts, the geographic area of each zone must be clearly defined in order to allow meaningful analysis of traffic impacts, bicycle and pedestrian safety and similar impacts.


In addition, the NOP lacks sufficient detail as to where traffic impacts will be studied. For instance, traffic corridors need to be studied a healthy distance from the campus, such as Tunnel Road/Claremont/Derby/Warring/ Piedmont Corridor; College to Oakland; Shattuck to Oakland; Hearst/Oxford/Shattuck/University. Telegraph, of course, is also critical.14 The NOP also fails to mention the AC Transit BRT EIR, especially in Section 12(f) of the Initial Study. (NOP, p. 35.) The EIR’s analysis should satisfy the above analytical criteria. Specific consideration must be given to the effect that additional development will have on access to and from the Panoramic Hill area, which encompasses portions of Oakland as well as Berkeley. The intersection of Panoramic Way and Canyon Road is the only point of access to this neighborhood. Any increase in traffic to Canyon Road will exacerbate existing access problems for emergency vehicles and must be considered a potentially significant impact in light of the threat to public safety. To the extent that increased enrollment exceeds the supply of student housing, implementation of the LRDP may also increase the total student population in this area, which includes many group living accommodations. Improvement to emergency access along the lines that are suggested in the previous discussion of Fire Protection could help to mitigate projected increases in both traffic and the Panoramic Hill population. Satellite facilities appear to have been excluded from the NOP. However, there could be a direct correlation between increased activity in satellite locations and traffic activity to and from the main campus. The EIR should fully analyze the traffic impacts of the use of satellite facilities, and in particular traffic between satellite facilities and University facilities in Berkeley. With respect to mitigation measures, the EIR should include: the possibility of integrating with the BRT EIR on Telegraph; a detailed analysis of possible TDM strategies and programs; potential integration of shuttle bus services near the campus; promotion and design of facilities for Segway HT–type alternatives; and increased parking enforcement in the adjacent neighborhoods, such as RPP enforcement. To the extent mitigation measures (such as increased parking enforcement) involve or require City participation, City staff would be pleased to discuss specific options with the University prior to or during preparation of the draft EIR. The EIR should generally address mitigation of the impacts of additional vehicle trips through Berkeley to campus or off-campus parking locations. As noted elsewhere in the City’s comments, the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center project offers a local model for mitigation and monitoring. Specifically, the EIR should address the strategies in the 2001 “Southside/ Downtown Transportation Demand Management Study” (pages 10-1 through 10-41) as possible mitigation for expansion proposed in the LRDP.

14 Similarly, the EIR should review pedestrian routes and crossing locations at points a healthy distance from the Campus, with explicit reference to the approved Bike Plan, and should not limit its analysis of these issues to streets adjoining the Campus. Since the NOP does not provide any detail as to this issue, we offer this suggestion as part of the City’s effort to ensure that all issues of concern are adequately addressed in the draft EIR.


Additional mitigation measures the EIR should analyze are:

• Working with students to find ways to make it easier for students to get around without cars.

• Restoring funding for Berkeley Trip. • Encouraging carpooling. • Increasing the supply of secure parking for bicycles on campus. Bicycle parking is

inadequate and bicycle theft is a big problem that discourages bicycle commuting by students and staff.

• Designating more convenient bicycle lanes in the no-riding areas of campus. • Encouraging more use of alternative modes by people traveling to special events such as

football and basketball games. With respect to construction/demolition traffic impacts, the EIR must include both specific and generic construction mitigation strategies, which the University will undertake to minimize construction impacts within the adjacent neighborhoods. A number of possible mitigation measures are as follows:

• Construction should not begin before 8:00 a.m., and should stop by 5:00 p.m., on weekdays at any sites that are adjacent to residential uses. There should be no construction work on Sundays or holidays. Related to this, there should be a concerted effort to reduce construction-related noise.

• Construction workers should be provided with strong incentives to carpool. The University should provide on-campus parking for construction workers, as well as remote parking with shuttle service to construction sites. Construction workers should be prohibited from parking regularly in RPP parking zones.

• Exclusive use of public sidewalks and streets for construction related purposes should be minimized. Measures to do so should be considered at the beginning of project design and should be built into the bidding and contracting process. Covered walkways should be provided in cases where construction interferes with regular use of sidewalks. Construction structures, materials and equipment should to the greatest extent possible be located off-street on University-owned property. On street public parking spaces should not be removed from public use unnecessarily. If public spaces are removed, the University should allocate an equivalent number of off-street spaces to the public, with the same cost and hours of use as the on-street spaces removed from public use.

• The University should commit to early stage notification of nearby residents and interested parties and should consult before finalizing plans and designs for development of specific projects on sites on and off campus. In addition, the University should establish a regular, effective and timely process for acting on specific resident questions and complaints regarding construction impacts.

Finally, at its September 18, 2003 meeting, the Berkeley Transportation Commission passed the following motion regarding the LRDP:


The Transportation Commission finds that the current list of alternatives in the UC 2020 LRDP EIR Notice of Preparation is inadequate.

The Transportation Commission recommends to the City of Berkeley that, in their comments to UC, they call for environmental analysis of a reduced or no new parking alternative that includes TDM programs designed to improve mode split and reduce demands for parking with a goal of no net new automobile trips to and from campus.

The Transportation Commission supports referral of the transportation related issues raised in the U.C. Community Coalition comments to City staff.

The Transportation Commission also refers the individual comments made by Transportation Commissioners to staff.15

With respect to parking, we offer the following comments: At the present time, many University students and staff park on neighborhood streets in areas where residential permit parking (RPP) is in force. This is feasible – and therefore encourages driving – because the City does not have the resources to ticket every automobile that is parked in violation of its RPP program. The increase in the number of people coming to the University will be expected to exacerbate this problem, whether or not more parking is built. Spillover parking will be a potential secondary environmental impact that may adversely affect the City. The spillover parking problem will very likely extend beyond the geographic areas proposed for new UC development. It will compromise the successful delivery of residential permit parking, and add to the resources the City must devote to responding to UC-related issues. Accordingly, the EIR should analyze the extent to which additional RPP enforcement will mitigate parking impacts related to increased enrollment, and should consider measures to increase RPP enforcement, such as funding part of the City’s RPP enforcement program in affected areas, as Alta Bates Summit Hospital has done.

15 Comments by individual Transportation Commissioners are:

1. It is unclear whether the existing small lots west of the Campus will indeed by converted to housing.

2. The EIR should include analyzing the safety and access impacts due to increased traffic volumes, speeding traffic, and increased construction traffic. The study should also show these impacts along arterial streets and at busy intersections in addition to impacts in residential neighborhoods.

3. Air quality impacts from construction and demolition phase should be analyzed. The Tien Center may require analysis due to the increased emissions from mobile source, constructions and stationary source emissions.


In addition, the New Century Plan contains some positive “access initiatives.” It refers to achieving and maintaining drive alone rates of under 50% for faculty/staff and under 10% for students, and sets the following “near-term objective:” “By the end of 2012, achieve 5% reductions in the percentages of student and faculty/staff drive-alone commuters from 2001 survey data.” The EIR should fully evaluate ways to accomplish this objective. The EIR should examine how much mode shift would be needed to meet the unmet demand for parking. In the same way that the LRDP establishes a target for additional parking spaces (which represent an opportunity cost as well as a monetary cost, because land used for parking is land that can’t accommodate either academic and support space or housing), the LRDP should establish a target for trips to campus to occur by alternative means of transportation. The NOP (p. 12) states, “by 2020 our objective is to increase the amount of campus parking by up to 30% over current and approved spaces. … Our 2020 targets may be adjusted in the future to reflect changes in demand and market conditions, but UC Berkeley may not substantially exceed the proposed number of net new… parking spaces without amending the 2020 LRDP.” A method to analyze whether or not traffic impacts associated with greater parking would result in impacts that were not analyzed in the EIR should be proposed in the EIR, to provide guidance for project-level CEQA review. Also, if the parking spaces are proposed in different geographic locations than those analyzed in the LRDP EIR, this could potentially result in greater traffic congestion or safety impacts, and would need to be described and analyzed. The NOP (p. 35) states that the EIR will analyze whether the proposed LRDP would conflict with “applicable LRDP policies...” This ignores the City’s very relevant policy statements, such as those on restricting the amount of parking. While the University may not be legally bound to follow these policies, neither may it act as if they do not exist. The EIR should analyze the LRDP’s consistency with all relevant City policies as well. The University’s proposal to develop 1200 parking spaces in the downtown may adversely effect the sustainability of the City’s major commercial district, resulting in physical impacts beyond those attendant on the massive amount of construction necessary to provide that many parking spaces. Utilities and Service Systems The NOP largely ignores potential impacts to the City’s sanitary sewer (wastewater) collection system, instead referring mainly to the capacity of the EBMUD wastewater treatment plant. (See, NOP, p. 36.) The NOP makes an abbreviated reference to “wastewater… conveyance facilities,” but does not elaborate on the type or level of analysis of impacts on these facilities that the EIR will include. In view of existing capacity limitations and infiltration and inflow (I/I) of storm water into existing sanitary sewers, the EIR should address peak sanitary sewer flows from University property and new University development in the “adjacent blocks” during wet weather season. Peak sewer flows during wet weather are dependent on the severity of the storm event (i.e., 5-year storms and greater) and could vary as high as 6 to 10 times dry weather sewer


flows in the affected City facilities. The EIR should also identify effective mitigation measures for the additional demand the LRDP will place on the existing sanitary sewer system. The City is currently under a 1986 Cease and Desist Order (CDO) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to eliminate all sewer overflows from the city's wastewater collection system.16 Under the CDO-mandated compliance plan, approximately 50% of the sanitary sewer system (49 out of 81 subbasins, serving approximately 60% of the City’s geographic area) must be replaced or rehabilitated, to reduce the I/I flows to the collection system and EBMUD treatment plant. These 49 subbasins include the University Campus Park (subbasin 17-012) and the Clark Kerr campus (subbasins 17-501 and 17-412). Any new development at the Hill Campus will have a significant impact on the downstream City sewer mains on Prospect Street and Dwight Way, which presently do not have peak sewer flow capacities for additional development. The same applies to the Clark Kerr campus. These impacts, and mitigations for them, should be fully analyzed in the EIR. In addition, cumulative wastewater contributions from both the LBNL and University LRDPs should be addressed. In sum, the EIR should address the impacts of the development under the LRDP (as well as cumulative University and LBNL development) on the City’s sanitary sewer system and the City’s ability to comply with the CDO and its NPDES permit, and water quality. The EIR should also state the University’s plans in this regard with respect to the subbasins for which it is responsible (i.e., what it intends to do to reduce peak wet weather sewer flows into the City sanitary sewer system on University property). Specifically, the University will need to replace aged sewers and reduce I/I flows during peak winter flows from its facilities into the city collection system. Finally, the EIR should identify effective mitigation measures for these impacts. As the University is aware, the City has a long-term maintenance/replacement program. Contributions to that program would clearly constitute mitigation measures. We would be pleased to discuss the specifics of these programs in greater detail during preparation of the EIR. Cumulative Impacts We have discussed key points relevant to the EIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts in a number of contexts in the preceding parts of this letter. We will add only that, in addition to its use of projections, the EIR should be as specific as possible about individual projects that will contribute to cumulative impacts, if they are known or reasonably foreseeable. In particular, the EIR should include all projects for which the University is currently raising funds, since it has been the City’s experience that commitments and representations made during the course of fundraising, whether explicit or implicit, can as a practical matter commit the University to specific projects, including scale, function and design, well before the project EIR process begins.

16 Moreover, it appears that upon renewal the City’s NPDES permit for wastewater discharge will prohibit any sewer overflows, regardless of the severity of the storm event.

Response to Notice of Preparation: 2020 LRPD & Tien Center October 15, 2003 Page 1 In closing, I would like to reiterate the City’s appreciation of this opportunity to provide early and meaningful comments on the scope and contents of the upcoming EIR, and the invitation to work closely with the City in drafting an EIR that will fully address both our agencies’ needs. Sincerely,

WELDON RUCKER City Manager Enclosure cc: Mayor and Council Phil Kamlarz, Deputy City Manager Senior Leadership Collaborative Zach Cowan, Asst. City Attorney

Grace Maguire, Asst. to the City Manager City of Berkeley Commission Secretaries

Economic &

Planning Systems Real Estate Economics Regional Economics Public Finance Land Use Policy

ME M O R A N D U M

To: Zach Cowan and Grace Maguire

From: EPS Consulting Team

Subject: NOP Response Supporting Mitigation Text; EPS #13009

Date: September 24, 2003

A number of City departments will be required to increase expenditures on public services and investments in infrastructure and capital facilities in order to serve the expansion of the University. Mitigation in the form of financial payments should be provided to fund these additional University-related costs. The sections below provide an overview of the additional types of services/ infrastructure that may be required due to future growth, and the resulting categories of mitigation payments that should be addressed in the EIR. When these mitigation payments are ultimately negotiated and calculated, they will be based on the demonstrable relationship, or nexus, between service/infrastructure costs and the actual demand for those services/infrastructure created by UC growth. In the case of capital facility expansion or improvement, mitigation payments should only be collected and retained for specific projects that are actually undertaken. It is recognized that the University will also generate some revenues for the City in the form of increased sales and use taxes as well as payments from the State that are tied to population. These revenues should be subtracted from the total cost impacts to the City departments prior to calculating the appropriate mitigation payment(s). Finally, this document proposes that the EIR addresses mitigation payments for both the development of new capital facilities that will serve the University, and the costs to operate, maintain, and staff facilities that benefit the University. Mitigation payments for operation, maintenance, and staffing should be included based on their role in community service provision and on their fundamental relationship to capital costs. Scheduled maintenance of existing capital facilities reduces the need to construct new facilities, while the existence of capital facilities without the budget or staff to operate them does not fully serve the communities who contribute the funding. Operations and maintenance costs are linked to any consideration of capital facilities, and should therefore be addressed in the EIR.

B E R K E L E Y 2501 Ninth St., Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710-2515 www.epsys.com

Phone: 510-841-9190 Fax: 510-841-9208

S A C R A M E N T O Phone: 916-649-8010 Fax: 916-649-2070

D E N V E R Phone: 303-623-3557 Fax: 303-623-9049

Zach Cowan and Grace Maguire September 24, 2003 Page 2

FIRE AND MEDICAL PROTECTION

The UC staffs fire inspection and code enforcement personnel, but does not maintain a firefighting or EMS staff; therefore, the Berkeley Fire Department provides the vast majority of fire and emergency medical protection to the UC. Berkeley Fire Department response data indicate that approximately 5 percent of calls for service since 1998 originated from UC-owned buildings, an estimate that does not take into account calls for service to other off-campus facilities and privately-owned student residences, which are also significant. The fact that UC represents a significant draw on department resources is not surprising considering that UC owns and/or occupies over 12 million GSF of academic and support space, which constitutes roughly 35 percent of total nonresidential space in the City of Berkeley.1 Since 1990, the UC has contributed to Fire department operations in the form of annual payments of $50,000 for fire/HAZMAT training, and four one-time payments totaling $914,000 for equipment purchases. The annual payments are scheduled to expire at the end of the 2005-2006 academic year, and no formal agreement was reached or is currently in place to provide continued funding for capital acquisitions.2 Considering that the LRDP describes the addition of 2.2 million additional GSF—an eight percent increase above current nonresidential space City-wide—as well as 2,600 new beds, the potential impacts of this proposed growth could have a significant effect on the Fire Department’s ability to continue to provide current levels of service. The EIR should specify mitigation measures for the following categories of impact, all of which will require increased departmental expenditures to accommodate new growth:

New or expanded capital facilities. The EIR should establish a process for the department to collect one-time UC contributions for capital facility improvements that will benefit the UC. Although the City’s most recent capital improvement plan does not include construction or expansion of Fire department capital facilities, the EIR should nonetheless establish a formal mechanism whereby mitigation payments can be negotiated for future expansions that may be deemed necessary to serve growing University populations.

Equipment upgrades and replacement. The department must be able to replace

aging equipment and take advantage of technological advances to provide the highest degree of fire and emergency medical protection. Certain specialized equipment may also be necessary to serve specific types of UC development, such as high-rises, underground facilities, and buildings with HAZMAT or other

1 This calculation assumes 70,000 total jobs in Berkeley (2002 General Plan), including approximately 13,000 UC jobs (NOP, Table 1) and 57,000 non-UC jobs. Assuming 400 GSF per non-UC employee, there are roughly 23 million GSF of non-UC space in the City. UC’s 12.1 million GSF is therefore approximately 35 percent of the 35 million total GSF. 2 Although the 1990 Mitigation Implementation Agreement between the City of the UC Regents called for the City Manager and Vice Chancellor to develop a set of service standards and a schedule of equipment acquisition and replacement by the end of fiscal year 1990-1991, these measures were never achieved. The Fire Department and UC Environmental Health and Safety Department continue to work towards completing these elements of the Agreement.

C:\Documents and Settings\dburruto\Desktop\LRDP\EPSnop_response5.doc


life-safety risks. The EIR should establish a process for the collection of annual or one-time payments to fund equipment upgrades, replacement, and the purchase of specialized equipment in association with current and projected campus demand.

Facility and equipment maintenance. Ongoing maintenance of facilities and

protective equipment increases the level of fire/EMS protection, and delays the need to purchase costly replacement items. The EIR should establish annual mitigation payments to ensure that facilities/equipment used to serve UC property and populations are adequately maintained.

Additional Firefighting/EMS staff. Significant expansions in campus

population and the number of facilities served by the department will require additional fire/EMS staff to maintain acceptable levels of protective service. The EIR should establish annual payments to fund increased staffing required to meet additional demand created by future growth under the LRDP.

Firefighter/EMS staff training. Specialized training is likely to be required to

adequately respond to certain types of facilities likely to be constructed under guidance of the proposed LRDP, including wildfire response, mid- and high-rise fire response, confined space entry, and HAZMAT and new-technology response, among others. The EIR should establish annual mitigation payments to fund initial and ongoing training for programs specifically designed to serve UC facilities and populations.

Fire Department developmental review. The EIR should establish a formal

process whereby the Fire Department can review and comment on all individual projects proposed under the LRDP. To ensure adequate fire/EMS safety is maintained during and after all new development, the department must be guaranteed an opportunity for formal review of issues such as fire/EMS access, water supply, prevention technologies, and be provided site and facility tours and copies of all completed site plans.

POLICE SERVICES

Under the current Departmental Order (March 1, 1999), UC police have operational responsibility of the UC campus and certain off-campus buildings, and the Berkeley Police have operational responsibility for the entire City of Berkeley outside the UC campus, including all UC-property outside campus boundaries not specifically assigned to UC police. Furthermore, UC police have legal authority to exercise police powers on campus and within one mile of campus, while City police have legal authority throughout the entire City. In practice, joint police operations are conducted in a cooperative manner, with officers responding to calls for service in both territories when requested and/or appropriate. In addition, UC police capabilities are insufficient for certain necessary police functions such as large-scale crowd control, traffic control, and booking facilities; UC police frequently rely on City police support for these services.



While the UC police patrol serve the campus and its population, City police are frequently called to respond to incidents involving UC affiliates. Costs incurred by the City police to respond to some of these requests—crowd control at football games and use of the City’s booking facility, for example—are partially reimbursed by UC on a case-by-case basis. Other costs, however, such as responding to student-related incidents in the vicinity of campus and instituting a weekend over-time patrol (“party patrol”) near the fraternities/sororities in the southside area, are not reimbursed, and represent net City police costs directly attributable to the UC. City police response data indicate that a significant percentage of calls-for-service—roughly 14 percent of annual calls City-wide in 2002—are made in response to incidents in the immediate vicinity of campus. In this light, it should be clear that the introduction of approximately 4,000 new students through 2020 (a 13 percent increase over 1998 enrollment), in addition to the development of up to 1.3 million GSF in areas for which the City police has operational responsibility, could potentially represent a significant additional burden not only to City police capital facility needs, but also to City police operational, equipment, and staffing costs. To ensure that the City police can continue to provide adequate police services to both UC and the City of Berkeley, the EIR should develop mitigation measures for the following categories of impact:

New or expanded capital facilities. The EIR should establish a process for the department to collect one-time UC contributions for capital facility improvements that will benefit the UC. Although the City’s most recent capital improvement plan does not include construction or expansion of police department capital facilities, the EIR should nonetheless establish a formal mechanism whereby mitigation payments can be negotiated for future expansions that may be deemed necessary to serve growing University populations.

Equipment upgrades and replacement. The department must be able to replace

aging equipment and take advantage of technological advances to provide the highest degree of police protection. Items funded by these payments might include equipment and computer system upgrades, replacement patrol cars, and the purchase of specialized equipment necessary to respond to incidents unique to the campus environment. The EIR should establish a process for the collection of annual or one-time payments to fund a “fair share” of any such expenditures that benefit the University.

Facility and equipment maintenance. Ongoing maintenance of facilities and

protective equipment increases the level of police protection and delays the need to purchase costly replacement items. The EIR should establish annual mitigation payments to ensure that police facilities/equipment used to serve the UC community are adequately maintained.

Additional police staff. Significant expansions in campus population and the

number of facilities served by the department will require additional sworn officers, traffic enforcement personnel, and other staff to maintain acceptable



levels of protective service. The EIR should establish annual payments to fund increased staffing required to meet additional demand created by future growth under the LRDP.

Police officer training. Specialized training may be required to adequately

respond to certain facilities likely to be constructed, and activities likely to take place under guidance of the proposed LRDP, including crowd/protest control, traffic enforcement, and issues relating to increased interface between UC and urban populations. The EIR should establish annual mitigation payments to fund initial and ongoing training for programs designed to serve UC facilities and populations.

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

The City of Berkeley constructs and maintains virtually all of the roads and pedestrian and bicycle paths in the City, including street repair, sidewalk repair, signalization, and the construction of traffic calming measures. With respect to the UC, the most significant impacts to City transportation activities and expenditures are the heavy daily UC-related traffic volumes (vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle) and ensuing congestion; road wear associated with large-scale construction; and the provision of services specifically tailored to the UC, such as circulation design measures, signalization, and pedestrian and bicycle crossings in the vicinity of the campus. According to the 2002 City of Berkeley General Plan, approximately 8,000 UC faculty/ staff and approximately 4,800 UC students drive alone to campus each day. The only contributions the UC has historically made towards transportation or traffic funds has been through payment of right-of-way and parking meter permit fees in association with long-term construction projects. The initial study appropriately addresses both the incremental and cumulative effects of UC development on local street traffic, intersection capacity, regional highways, on/off-ramp congestion, safety hazards (including increased bicycle accidents), and parking capacity. The initial study does not specifically address impacts to sidewalk construction and use, the need for expanded bicycle paths, or the need for improved and/or additional pedestrian crossings and circulation measures near campus, new buildings, and new residential facilities. Furthermore, the initial study does not specifically address the added wear to main construction traffic corridors that is likely to occur in constructing the 2,600 beds and 2.2 million GSF called for in the LRDP. The City’s 2002-2003 budget estimates the 10-year street maintenance backlog consists of roughly $40 million worth of repairs, and the current sidewalk repair backlog to be worth approximately $14 million. Given that the UC is the single largest generator of daily trips (vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle) in the City, the EIR should develop mitigation measures for the following categories of impact:

Construction impacts. Large-scale construction can significantly affect traffic circulation, parking, road wear, and the quality of life of neighboring residents. The EIR should establish mitigation measures to minimize the amount of street,



curb-side, and sidewalk frontage affected by construction; to ensure construction equipment and contractor parking is located on UC property to the maximum extent possible; to encourage carpooling and limit parking in residential parking permit (RPP) zones by construction workers; to fund road maintenance required to off-set construction-related impacts; to minimize noise disturbance; and to limit construction activities to normal business hours.

Traffic. Significant increases to campus population(s) and facilities will

exacerbate traffic congestion in Berkeley. To minimize these adverse impacts, the EIR should develop mitigation measures such as annual payments to offset City street maintenance expenditures on routes with significant amounts of UC-related traffic; contributions to traffic demand and engineering studies in the vicinity of campus and along main access routes; contributions to the design and construction of traffic calming and other circulation elements designed to reduce UC-related traffic impacts; and the implementation of strategies similar to those found in the Alta Bates Medical Center EIR and the Southside/Downtown Transportation Demand Management Study.

Parking. Increases in campus population and facilities will also exacerbate

parking problems in Berkeley, particularly if no steps are taken to curb future automobile trips. The EIR should include mitigation measures to ensure adequate levels of parking without generating additional demand for new automobile trips; to establish parking pricing strategies (short/long term and UC/public) that fully incorporate the cost(s) of travel by auto; to fund the creation and administration of new RPP areas where necessary; and to provide or fund adequate parking enforcement, including in existing and future RPP areas.

Bicycle transit. Bicycle transit represents a convenient and sustainable

transportation alternative for UC-affiliates living near campus. The EIR should include mitigation measures that contribute funds to future bicycle transit studies in the vicinity of campus; ensure the inclusion of bicycle lanes in new development and improve the convenience of bicycle transit through the existing campus; provide funds for the development of adequate bicycle racks; and ensure significant patrols by UC police to discourage bicycle theft.

Alternative transit. Many alternative transit methods exist that can potentially

reduce the automobile mode share among UC-affiliates. The EIR should include mitigation measures that ensure these measures are implemented when feasible, including restoring funding for Berkeley Trip; improving shuttle bus service and its integration with other local transit services; and encouraging carpooling and other transit modes, particularly during special events on campus.

UTILITIES

The UC constructs and maintains the wastewater and stormwater infrastructure on campus, while the City maintains the infrastructure that collects wastewater and



stormwater from the terminal distribution points at the borders of the UC campus and delivers it to the EBMUD interception main (wastewater) or tidal gates to the San Francisco Bay (stormwater). The UC currently provides its own solid waste and recycling services for the campus, and contracts independently with a solid waste receiving yard in Richmond for disposal. The City provides all utility services for UC-owned off-campus facilities, and for all private residential units occupied by UC affiliates. Despite incurring significant infrastructure construction and maintenance costs, the City does not receive revenues from UC for sanitary sewer collection or for storm sewer infrastructure.3 The UC has historically reimbursed a portion of this cost through per-unit sewer hook-up fees ($200 per new residential unit), annual sewer capital facility fees of $250,000, and escalating annual sewer O&M fees (approximately $207,000 in 2002). The agreement establishing these payments will expire at the end of the 2005-’06 academic year. The initial study addresses whether new water entitlements or facilities would be required and what the environmental effects might be; whether new growth would exceed existing wastewater or stormwater system capacities or require new facilities, and what the “potential impacts” of those facilities might be; whether new growth would exceed existing landfill capacity; and whether new growth would require expanding or adding energy production or transmission facilities. Though it is appropriate that the EIR addresses water supply and delivery facilities, the City is not involved in water delivery to the UC, so this element is beyond the scope of this document. The demand the extended UC community places on the City’s public works facilities, operations, and maintenance infrastructure and budgets is significant. The EIR should therefore specify mitigation measures for the following categories of impact:

Wastewater. The City incurs significant costs to maintain and replace the sanitary sewer infrastructure that collects wastewater from UC property and delivers it to EBMUD conveyance and treatment facilities. Unlike other EBMUD commercial and residential customers in Berkeley, EBMUD does not collect a City of Berkeley sewer fee on any of its UC accounts; the City is therefore not reimbursed for the costs to maintain this infrastructure. The EIR should include mitigation measures to address this shortfall, which may include one-time hook-up fees, and either reinstating annual mitigation payments or instituting a rate structure under the EMBUD accounting system to collect maintenance funds directly, as with other accounts in Berkeley.

Stormwater. The City also incurs significant costs to maintain and replace the

surface and underground infrastructure that collects stormwater from the UC campus and its off-campus properties and delivers it to the Bay. Non-UC properties contribute to these capital facility and maintenance improvements through a fee charged on each parcel’s annual tax bill. UC properties are tax exempt so do not pay this fee. The EIR should establish annual payments to help

3 In addition to EMBUD wastewater treatment charges, EBMUD collects City sewer fees on its Berkeley consumer bills on behalf of the City. EBMUD bills UC accounts for wastewater treatment, but does not collect the City sewer fee on UC accounts. The City recoups stormwater expenses as a stormwater fee on annual tax bills; as a tax-exempt agency, the UC does not pay this fee.



fund capital facility improvements and maintenance of the stormwater conveyance infrastructure that serves the UC.

Solid Waste. Though the UC primarily contracts solid waste collection and

disposal independently with an operator outside Berkeley, the UC’s waste disposal is nonetheless counted against the City of Berkeley’s diversion requirements. Furthermore, the UC maintains an account with the Berkeley transfer station, and is reportedly considering diverting its plant debris to the Berkeley facility where it can be composted. Because the remaining capacity of the Berkeley transfer station is relatively limited, the EIR should address the potential cumulative effects of this current and proposed future diversion on City-wide disposal capacity, and develop compensatory mitigation measures. These measures might include payments to procure and/or develop additional solid waste disposal facilities.

PARKS AND RECREATION

The UC provides a wide range of open space and recreational facilities for its community, many of which are not made available to the general public. In turn, the City provides a variety of parks and recreational facilities that are open to both the public-at-large and the UC community. Field and picnic area booking logs as well as anecdotal department staff evidence indicate that UC use—and UC student use in particular—of City-owned park facilities is very high, and results in significant wear-and-tear to fields and picnic facilities. It is worth noting that the UC has never made payments or contributions to the City to offset capital costs, or operational and maintenance expenditures, and the UC does not contribute to the main source of parks and recreation funding in Berkeley—the City parks tax. It is appropriate that the EIR addresses, as stated in the NOP, “whether the increase in campus population would exceed the capacity of existing…parks or other regional facilities, contributing to their substantial physical deterioration.” Given that the current level of parks and recreation facilities in the City is deficient compared with the total service population and intended service goals, it is very likely that significant population increases will exacerbate this shortage.4 The net effect of proposed population increases under the LRDP is unclear because no details were provided as to the amount of open space and/or recreational facilities that may accompany this growth. The EIR should identify mitigation measures for the following categories of impact:

Land acquisition and dedication. Considering the current deficiency in sports fields in Berkeley combined with active use by UC affiliates, any significant increases in the campus population should be accompanied by the construction of new fields and recreational open space. The EIR should include mitigation measures to address this need, including land dedications as part of future

4 For example, an informal October 2002 survey of the City of Berkeley Association of Sport Field Users representatives estimated that at least 12 new fields are currently required to both avoid turning away future teams and allow current teams to follow typical practice schedules.



developments and/or one-time or ongoing capital facility payments to fund potential acquisition of land for new sports fields or recreational open space that serve the UC.

Recreation facility construction. Though the UC provides a variety of

recreational facilities for its community, UC affiliates also use and rely upon City-owned recreation facilities, while the UC is simultaneously exempt from parks tax contributions. To compensate for this shortfall, the EIR should establish one-time or annual payments to contribute funds to the construction of capital recreation facilities that serve the UC.

Landscaping and park maintenance costs. Wear and tear, and resulting

maintenance costs, of parks and recreation facilities is directly related to the size of the population that uses those facilities. Significant increases to the UC population will place further demand on City facilities, and will drive up landscaping and maintenance costs. The EIR should establish annual payments to off-set its “fair share” of maintenance expenses.

Program and staffing costs. City recreational programs serve both UC affiliates

and their families. Families who live in UC-owned housing do not contribute their fair-share to maintaining these programs, however, as the housing is tax exempt. The EIR should establish an annual payment to provide funding for City-operated recreational programs.

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

The City Planning Department devotes significant time and expense to reviewing and responding to a variety of UC-related activities. City efforts include reviewing environmental plans and documents, including coordination of the public review process; performing CEQA special studies for certain types of development where the City serves as the State-mandated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA); monitoring UC mitigation performance following plan adoption; investigating public complaints related to construction and construction management; and reviewing, developing, and enforcing student-related zoning designations. Aside from one historical instance of a UC contribution to a City staff post, the UC has not reimbursed the remaining City efforts described above.5 The initial study does not address the potential impact of the LRDP process, or the proposed development described therein, on City Planning Department budget or staffing needs. Considering that the UC intends the proposed LRDP and associated EIR to be “program level” documents, which require that any future specific projects will each necessitate “project level” development plans and individual EIRs, the City’s ensuing review, public coordination, and mitigation monitoring efforts will require

5 City Planning Department staff indicated that immediately following the previous (1990) LRDP, the UC funded a temporary senior planning level staff position to monitor UC mitigation performance.




significant staff time and budget allocations. The EIR should therefore address mitigation measures for the following categories of impact: Development plan review. City staff spend a significant amount of time reviewing UC development plans. This time is typically compensated through plan-check and building-permit fees, though the UC does not pay these as they are not subject to the local development regulations. The EIR should therefore establish a payment structure that helps the City offset staffing costs directly related to UC development plans. Public process. City staff devote significant resources towards receiving, logging, and responding to a variety of citizen complaints directly related to UC development plans and construction. Because the UC is often not required to abide by standard City public notification and public process requirements, the burden is often solely the City’s to respond to these complaints. The EIR should establish mitigation measures either by implementing explicit requirements for UC projects to meet City standards for public notification and review, by maintaining a public liaison staff position, or by making payments to the City to help fund a UC/public liaison position. Performance monitoring. While the UC and its contractors are strictly responsible for mitigation and monitoring on the construction site, the City is often also forced to monitor the University’s mitigation performance, either due to local residential complaints or statutory authority (as a CUPA lead agency, for example). Similar to historical UC contributions towards a City mitigation monitoring staff position, the EIR should establish payments to help the City offset future staff costs incurred solely to monitor UC performance.