I. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR

Transcription

1 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FINDINGS AND APPROVALS OF THE AMENDMENT OF THE LRDP AND DESIGN OF TWO UNDERHILL AREA PROJECTS: CENTRAL DINING AND OFFICE FACILITY AND, BERKELEY CAMPUS I. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15090, the Board of Regents of the University of California ( The Regents ) hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report ( Final EIR ) for the Underhill Area Projects (the Project ) for the University of California, Berkeley campus (the University ) has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ( CEQA ), that the Final EIR was presented to The Regents, and that The Regents has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project, as set forth below in Section III. As part of this certification, The Regents hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the University. The Final EIR includes the April 2000 Draft EIR and the October 2000 Final EIR. II. FINDINGS The following Findings are hereby adopted by The Regents as required by Public Resources Code Sections 21081, , , and Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections through 15093, in conjunction with the approval of the Project which is set forth in Section III below. A. Environmental Review Process In accordance with CEQA and the University of California Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA, the University s 1990 Long Range Development Plan (the LRDP ) was approved and the accompanying LRDP Environmental Impact Report ( LRDP EIR, SCH No ) was certified by The Regents in May, The Project would implement development called for in the LRDP, including replacement of the structures (former Parking Structure D and rooftop sports field) that were demolished in 1993 due to structural instability. The 1990 LRDP contemplated several housing projects in the Underhill area, including 475 to 550 beds in a residence hall at the proposed Central Dining and Office Facility site on Bowditch Street. Under the Project, this housing would be provided at alternate sites in the Underhill area, including the College-Durant site designated in the LRDP as a reserve site. An LRDP amendment is proposed to modify the intended use of the Bowditch Street site from student housing to dining/student services and office use. In addition, the LRDP anticipated protecting Fox Cottage, located at 2612 Channing Way, and constructing housing around it. The proposed dining/student services and office use (the Central Dining and Office Facility, referred to in the Final EIR as the CDSSB ) substantially alters the existing context for Fox Cottage, and programmatic and financial constraints make preservation of Fox Cottage at its current site

2 Page 2 infeasible. Therefore, an additional LRDP amendment is proposed to move Fox Cottage to a nearby surface parking lot north of 2547 ChanningWay (the Shorb House). The potential environmental impacts of the Project have been analyzed in relation to the 1990 LRDP EIR in a tiered analysis contained in the Final EIR. The tiering of the environmental analysis for the Project allowed the Final EIR to rely on the LRDP EIR for information concerning: (a) general background and setting information for environmental topic areas; (b) overall growth-related issues; (c) issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the LRDP EIR and for which there is no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis; and (d) long-term cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR for the Project was completed on April 7, 2000 and was circulated from April 7, 2000 to June 9, 2000 for review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies and organizations, thereby extending the required 45-day review period for an additional 15 days. In addition, a public hearing to accept public testimony on the Draft EIR was held on April 24, A total of 2 letters from governmental agencies, 4 letters from offices of one local government (the City of Berkeley) and 23 letters from the public were submitted, and 22 persons commented at the public hearing. The comments received in the letters and testimony primarily concerned land use and planning, traffic and circulation (including bicycle circulation and safety), parking supply, visual quality, cultural resources and student housing. The University s responses to the public comments are contained in the Final EIR. Subsequent to completion of the Draft EIR public review period, the Project was revised to provide for the relocation of Fox Cottage to a site north of Shorb House, a City landmark, instead of its demolition. The Draft EIR analyzed the environmental impact of both the demolition and the sale by the University and relocation of Fox Cottage and concluded that both would cause a significant unavoidable impact to an historic resource. The Final EIR analyzed the relocation of Fox Cottage by the University. It concludes that the relocation of Fox Cottage to the nearby University land will not cause any new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts found to be potentially significant in the Draft EIR. Other minor revisions to the Project components, as described on page III-17, Table III of the Final EIR, do not affect the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section and CEQA Guidelines Section , the University determined that recirculation of the Draft EIR for public review was not required. B. Project Impacts and Disposition of Related Mitigation Measures Identified in the Final EIR The analysis in the Final EIR is focused to address those impacts of the Project not adequately identified or mitigated by the LRDP EIR. The Final EIR also identified LRDP EIR mitigation measures relevant to the Project that must be implemented as part of the Project. All relevant LRDP EIR mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project as Project elements. In addition, all Project-specific mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR are included in the Project and are made conditions of approval of the Project. The following

3 Page 3 discussion elaborates on environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR and new mitigation measures proposed in the Project EIR. 1. Land Use The Project would not conflict with existing or proposed land uses surrounding the Project sites because of the urbanized nature of the Underhill area. The proposed sports field, parking structure, dining commons, offices, student housing and related student services are generally consistent with the LRDP. The Project requires amendment of the LRDP to modify the intended use of the Bowditch site from housing to the Central Dining and Office Facility. However, this is a less than significant impact because housing would be provided elsewhere, including at the College-Durant site and in the Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 infill sites. (See page IV.A-18 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The proposed land uses are also consistent with the Commercial/Residential designation in the City of Berkeley Master Plan and with the proposed designation of Urban Mixed Use in the draft Southside Planning Framework. Consistent with the draft Southside Planning Framework policies, parking would be provided in a parking structure (not surface lots) in close proximity to the University. In addition, provision of new student housing at the Project sites would be consistent with the City of Berkeley Master Plan and the draft Southside Planning Framework policies. (See pages IV.A of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Although the proposed building heights would be consistent with the heights of surrounding buildings and the University would follow its design guidelines to ensure consistency between Project components and the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood, some components of the Project may not meet the City requirements for height, setbacks and density in the R-4 zoning district. This would constitute a significant land use impact under the Criteria of Significance of the LRDP FEIR. The Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 housing would step down from seven to four stories in order to integrate the complexes into the neighborhood building scale; however, the maximum seven-story height would exceed the six-story building height limit established in the City s R-4 zoning district. The additional housing to be provided at the Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 would also exceed the City s density standards set forth in its Master Plan. The Channing/Bowditch Apartment Project, the parking structure and sports field could violate the minimum building setback parameters established in the R-4 zoning district. The Central Dining and Office Facility would violate the City s building setbacks and height limit. The four-story College-Durant housing would exceed the three-story height limit established by the City s Hillside Overlay District. (See pages IV.A of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (requiring the University to evaluate a project s land use compatibility with the surrounding environment and its consistency with local land use plans and zoning requirements) is included in the Approval. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure LAND-1 (providing that the City of Berkeley could amend the City zoning

4 Page 4 provisions applicable to the Project) would eliminate this significant impact. However, because implementation of this mitigation measure is within the City s discretion, and is therefore uncertain, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. (See pages V.A-17-18, 21 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The Project could not feasibly attain the Project Objectives within the constraints of the City s zoning limitations. It is hereby determined that this significant, unavoidable impact is acceptable for the reasons specified in Section G, below. 2. Circulation and Parking The Project would add 254 new a.m. and 185 new p.m. peak hour trips to existing local traffic volumes. This would increase delays at some intersections, but all study intersections analyzed in the Final EIR would continue to operate at LOS D or better. This would be a less than significant impact. (See pages IV.B-23, 26 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The parking supply changes proposed by the Project fall within the site-specific and campus-wide parking totals outlined in the LRDP. The replacement Underhill parking garage would balance the loss of parking spaces due to other University projects and the current attendant parking which is required due to the loss of the Underhill parking structure in With the replacement of the Underhill parking structure and removal of surface lots, the parking supply would be increased by a net total of 402 spaces (575 new spaces on the Underhill block, 66 lost spaces at the College-Durant housing site, 27 lost spaces at the Channing/Bowditch housing site, and 8 spaces lost due to the relocation of Fox Cottage). (See pages IV.B-23, 26 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The Project would not result in a demand for transit services that would exceed the capacity of existing services. The new housing components of the Project would generate two AC Transit and four BART peak-hour trips. All AC Transit routes serving the Southside of campus operate at less than 50 percent occupancy. (See page IV.B-25 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The Project would not result in unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists. Channing Way and Bowditch Street are City-designated bicycle routes. Although bicyclists may encounter conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the Underhill parking structure, the Project would implement LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-5(a)-(c) (requiring in part that the parking structure be designed to minimize on-street vehicle queues and to provide ingress and egress at locations which minimize conflicts with traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists on adjacent streets), which would mitigate this impact to less than significant levels. (See pages IV.B-23, of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Intersection service levels and traffic congestion could increase if parking were provided at the new parking facility beyond the planned 1,000 spaces. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 (requiring that attendant parking to achieve capacity of more than 1,000 spaces be used only: for special events on weekends and during non-peak hours on weekdays; during phased construction of the parking structure, provided the total number of

5 Page 5 parked cars does not exceed 1,000 at any phase; or to replace parking spaces removed at any other University-operated parking garage in the Southside area, provided the new number of parked cars does not exceed the number of lost parking spaces) would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. In addition, the Final EIR analyzes parking and circulation conditions that would occur when attendant parking would be permitted. The analysis determined that attendant parking as permitted in Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 would not result in significant changes to the level of service of the studied intersections and that no new information has come to light that identified a significant impact that was not previously identified. All studied intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better. (See page IV.B-28 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) A significant increase in pedestrian volumes crossing Channing Way and Haste Street for travel between the new and existing dormitories and the Central Dining and Office Facility, and between the parking structure and Central Campus, would cause congestion and possible increased potential for accidents at the Channing/Bowditch and Haste/Bowditch intersections, and along the blocks between College and Bowditch. Pedestrian crossings on Channing Way during the p.m. peak hour would increase by more than 300 percent as a result of the Project, from approximately 455 pedestrian crossings under existing conditions to approximately 1,970 pedestrian crossings on Channing Way under existing plus Project conditions. A smaller, but still substantial, increase in p.m. peak hour crossings would occur on Haste Street. The high volume of pedestrian crossings at Channing/Bowditch and Haste/Bowditch intersections during peak hours could cause disorderly traffic flow, confusion as to right-of-way, and unpredictable traffic maneuvers. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-2 (requiring that upon full occupancy or use of the Project, the University would conduct pedestrian counts at Channing/Bowditch and Haste/Bowditch intersections to determine whether traffic signal warrants were met, and, if met, the intersection would be signalized) would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. (See pages IV.B of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) During construction of the Project components, there is a potential for loss of existing parking spaces as well as parking shortages in the Southside area. Up to 425 existing parking spaces in the Underhill site may be temporarily lost to construction staging for the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3 (allowing temporary capacity increase measures such as attendant parking at University-owned and leased lots to replace up to the number of parking spaces unavailable during construction of Project components) would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. (See page IV.B-30 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Mid-block pedestrian crossings of Channing Way and Haste Street would occur due to the direct path between the Central Dining and Office Facility and Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 dormitories, and due to rain shelter provided by the new parking structure for trips between the residential units and the Central Campus. These crossings could exacerbate

6 Page 6 conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles using the parking structure driveways. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-4.(a) (requiring that all possible design measures to reduce the attractiveness of mid-block pedestrian crossings be considered and implemented if feasible, including use of landscaping, building design and parking facility design) and Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-4.(b) (requiring that the design of buildings and the parking structure at the Underhill block incorporate clear and safe paths of travel across the block, either inside the garage or elsewhere on the block between the Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 dormitories) would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. (See pages IV.B of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) 3. Visual Resources The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to visual resources. It would not cause significant impacts on public scenic views because the Project site is not located within or near scenic vistas due to its urbanized environment and limited public viewing locations. The Project site does not provide significant views of the Berkeley Hills or San Francisco Bay. (See page IV.C-13 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The Project also would not cause significant negative aesthetic impacts. The Central Dining and Office Facility would not result in significant negative aesthetic impacts related to height, massing, orientation, setbacks, exterior materials, preservation of existing landscaping or project landscaping. The orientation and setbacks of the building would be consistent with surrounding buildings. The building height of only four stories would not cause significant viewshed or shadow impacts on the sports field to be developed above the parking garage. Trees would remain on the site or be replaced at a one-to-one ratio. (See pages IV.C of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The College-Durant housing project also would not result in significant negative aesthetic impacts related to massing, scale, orientation, exterior materials and removal of landscaping. The building would be four stories tall, consistent with the two- to nine-story surrounding buildings, and it would not block public views. The massing is consistent and moderate compared to the existing buildings. The exterior materials and landscaping would also be consistent with the surrounding structures and streetscapes. (See page IV.C-14 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The Channing-Bowditch housing project would be three stories tall at the street frontage and up to four stories in the rear. The setback and façade would match the surrounding buildings. The building would be generally consistent with nearby building heights, and the height and massing would not result in significant negative aesthetic impacts. (See page IV.C-14 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The four proposed new buildings at Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 would be designed to be sensitive to the scale and fabric of the surrounding area. Structures would be stepped, with the tallest, seven-story elements adjacent to the existing nine-story residence halls,

7 Page 7 stepping down to four stories in continuity with the street slope. The buildings would not result in significant negative aesthetic impacts. (See page IV.C-25 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The parking structure and sports field would not cause significant negative aesthetic effects. The parking structure and sports field would replace the former structures at the same location. The parking structure would be sunk below grade at College Avenue and would include design features such as articulation of the parking structure and landscaping to soften the edges. The garage elevators would comply with the Underhill Area Master Plan (UAMP) design guidelines and would not block views or create significant shadow impacts. (See page IV.C-25 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The Project would not cause significant negative aesthetic impacts to landscaping. Although the Project could cause the loss of mature redwoods at the Central Dining and Office Facility site, the Project would implement LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (requiring the preservation and replacement of specimen trees). The Project would also be consistent with the UAMP design guidelines regarding landscaping. Although the Project could create light and glare impacts, particularly as it relates to the lighting of the proposed sports field, the Project would implement LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures (c) (requiring the campus to establish management procedures for recreational areas to minimize noise and night-time glare) and (designing lighting to minimize glare and intrusion onto surrounding sensitive land uses to the extent feasible). This would be a less than significant impact. (See page IV.C-25 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The Project would not create significant aesthetic negative impacts related to shadows. The Project would increase some shadows in the Underhill area. However, the new shadows would generally fall within existing shadow patterns and would not fall within public gathering spaces. (See pages IV.C of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Further, the Project would incorporate those mitigation measures identified in the LRDP EIR to reduce the impacts associated with the implementation of the LRDP to less than significant levels. Specifically, the Project would implement LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (requiring that the campus Design Review Committee (DRC) to evaluate potential land use conflicts and mitigation measures). (See page IV.C-13 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) 4. Historical Resources The Project includes development within the vicinity of historic resources. However, the Project would implement UAMP design guidelines requiring that development be contextual with the existing surroundings in terms of scale, massing, materials, details and landscaping, as well as sensitive to adjacent historical resources. This would generally minimize potential

8 Page 8 impacts to the historic structures in the area by mandating contextual and sensitive design. (See page IV.D-13 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Demolition of the dining facilities at Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 due to seismic safety concerns would cause a significant impact to resources of historic interest. Although the unit complexes have been altered by seismic retrofit programs and substantial changes in use in the central buildings, both residence hall complexes are notable as architecturally distinguished complexes. The demolition of the dining facilities would remove essential components of their significance. If Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and/or 2 prove to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), then demolition of the dining facilities would constitute a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HIS-1a (requiring an evaluation of the historic significance of the Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2), and if this evaluation determines that the buildings are eligible for listing on the CRHR, implementation of Mitigation Measure HIS-1b (requiring recordation of existing conditions of the dining facilities and urban design context in accordance with the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards) and Mitigation Measure HIS-1c (requiring consideration of an exhibit of the HABS record) would reduce this impact to the extent feasible, but it will remain significant and unavoidable. The cost to correct the poor seismic condition of the dining facilities and renovate the existing Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2, as well as the continuing operating costs of two separate dining facilities, is significantly greater than the cost to construct a new building and renders the option of retaining and seismically rehabilitating the dining facilities infeasible. It is hereby determined that this significant and unavoidable adverse impact is acceptable for the reasons specified in Section G, below. (See pages IV.D of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Development of new buildings on the Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 sites would adversely affect the historic integrity of the complexes because it would alter the relationship of the existing buildings. If Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and/or 2 prove to be eligible for the CRHR, this impact would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HIS-2 (requiring the implementation of Mitigation Measures HIS-1a, HIS-1b and HIS-1c) would reduce this impact to the extent feasible, but it will remain significant and unavoidable. It is hereby determined that this significant and unavoidable adverse impact is acceptable for the reasons specified in Section G, below. (See pages IV.D of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Relocation of Fox Cottage to the Shorb House parking lot would cause a significant adverse effect to an historic property. Fox Cottage is a designated City Landmark and is deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The campus explored many alternative designs for the Central Dining and Office Facility in an effort to maintain Fox Cottage on-site in accordance with the LRDP. Alternatives considered included splitting the office from the dining component and locating them at opposite ends of the Underhill block, maintaining the dining program in the existing dining facilities at Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2, and integrating Fox Cottage into the dining program at the Central Dining and

9 Page 9 Office Facility site. In each case, program, operational, urban design and financial feasibility constraints made the option of maintaining Fox Cottage on-site infeasible. Retaining Fox Cottage on-site would not substantially reduce impacts as compared to moving it given the unavoidable changes to the surroundings of Fox Cottage at its current location, with the development of the Central Dining and Office Facility. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HIS-4 (requiring that the Fox Cottage be relocated within the Southside area of the City of Berkeley) would reduce this impact to the extent feasible, but it will remain significant and unavoidable. (See pages IV.D of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) It is hereby determined that this significant and unavoidable adverse impact is acceptable for the reasons specified in Section G, below. Further, the Project would incorporate those mitigation measures identified in the LRDP EIR to reduce the historical resource impacts associated with the implementation of the LRDP to less than significant levels, including LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a) (requiring that the campus DRC include a recognized architectural historian and that the DRC review projects for potential impacts on historic resources and formulate recommendations to reduce impacts, if any) and LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c) (requiring the campus to comply with all applicable laws regarding development that would affect historic resources and to avoid demolition or substantial alteration of historically significant structures unless necessary due to fiscal and programmatic requirements). (See pages IV.D-12-13, 17 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) 5. Air Quality The Project would not cause significant impacts related to air quality. None of the Project components would have the potential to generate substantial amounts of objectionable odors or toxic air contaminants. The Project would not involve the use of acutely hazardous materials. In addition, the Project would not induce measurable changes in existing carbon monoxide concentrations in the Project vicinity, and the new parking structure is not expected to generate substantial new trips to the area. There would be no exceedances of either the State or federal CO standards for the 1-hour or 8-hour durations. Finally, although the vehicular emissions associated with the Project would result in an increase in regional emissions, the increase would not exceed the operational thresholds established by State or federal law for criteria pollutants. (See pages IV.E of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Air pollutant emissions associated with the Project would occur over the short-term from site preparation activities such as grading and construction equipment exhaust, and these could cause significant short-term air quality impacts. However, implementation of LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (watering of construction sites, covering of materials, and appointing a contractor to ensure measures are implemented), LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (avoiding unnecessary idling of construction trucks), and LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (requiring compliance with all applicable air quality law and regulations) would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. (See page IV.E-14 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.)

10 Page Noise No significant adverse long-term impacts related to noise are anticipated. The increase in traffic associated with the Project would increase area noise levels by less than 3 dba over the future baseline traffic noise levels. This is below the Criteria of Significance in the Final EIR. Operational noise from the Central Dining and Office Facility, student housing and other Project components would not be expected to exceed noise standards. The design of the covered loading area of the Central Dining and Office Facility is intended to minimize impacts from truck loading and unloading activities on the occupants of the Casa Bonita Apartments. (See pages IV. F-8-9, 11 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Short term significant noise impacts would result from increased construction traffic on access roads, demolition, excavation, grading, pile driving and building erection on the Project sites during construction. Noise levels from these activities could range intermittently up to 91 dba outside the nearest student housing adjacent to the Project sites. This would constitute a significant short-term noise impact. Existing student housing structures are located within 200 feet of the Project boundary, and Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 are less than 200 feet away. Construction noise levels at these locations would exceed the noise threshold for stationary equipment in use for more than 10 days. With standard noise attenuation of more than 25 dba from exterior to interior in residential buildings, construction noise would not exceed City standards inside student housing. (See pages IV.F of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Implementation of LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (limiting schedule for construction hours and delivery of materials and requiring use of controlled or muffled construction equipment to minimize disruption to campus activities and surrounding residential users), Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a (restricting hours of construction), Mitigation Measure NOISE-2b (limiting demolition activities at the Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 dining facilities to summer and winter student recesses), Mitigation Measure NOISE-2c (providing a noise monitor contact to receive complaints) and Mitigation Measure NOISE-2d (setting up a communication network to communicate with affected neighbors) would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. (See pages IV.F-8, 16 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Nighttime occupation and use of the proposed facilities, especially the sports field, would potentially generate noise levels exceeding the noise criteria established by the City of Berkeley. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (requiring strict adherence to hours of operation to minimize noise, glare and nuisance problems) and Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 (restricting the hours of operation of the sports field to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on all days) would mitigate this impact to less than significant levels. (See pages IV.F-8-11 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Finally, the Project also would incorporate those noise mitigation measures identified in the LRDP EIR to reduce the impacts associated with the implementation of the LRDP to less than significant levels. (See page IV.F-18 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.)

11 Page Population and Housing The Project would not cause significant impacts related to population and housing. It would not induce substantial growth or population and/or employment within the City, either directly or indirectly. The new housing has been planned to accommodate students within existing enrollment levels, would not induce enrollment expansion and would maintain the campus population within the limits identified in the LRDP. The 900 new student beds would result in an increase in the population of students housed in the Southside area. This housing would meet an existing demand for student housing within close proximity to the Central Campus. Population impacts would therefore be localized. No housing units would be displaced by the Project. (See pages IV.G-8-9 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The Project would not induce growth beyond that which can be accommodated by the City of Berkeley Master Plan. No increase in University staff is anticipated in connection with the Project. The proposed increase in housing would be consistent with the City of Berkeley s Housing Element and the specific policies contained within the Element. (See page IV.G-9 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) The proposed new housing also would be generally consistent with the LRDP, which calls for new housing and the consolidation of student services in the Southside area. (See pages IV.G-9-10 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Approval of the Project would, however, require amendment of the LRDP to address elements of the Project not specifically identified within the LRDP, including the proposal to locate the Central Dining and Office Facility on a site proposed for housing in the LRDP. Further, the Project would incorporate those mitigation measures identified in the LRDP EIR to reduce the impacts associated with the implementation of the LRDP to less than significant levels. (See pages IV.G-7-8 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) C. Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR identified no new cumulative impacts other than those identified and analyzed in the LRDP EIR. The LRDP EIR fully analyzed the environmental impacts from cumulative development of proposed LRDP projects and other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the surrounding community, and that discussion is incorporated into these Findings to the extent pertinent. The Project would incrementally contribute to, but would not exceed, the cumulative impacts previously identified in the LRDP EIR. In addition, any cumulative land use and visual impacts related to any increase in student enrollment would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (requiring that the campus DRC evaluate potential land use conflicts and mitigation measures) and LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-9(b) (requiring that the University consult with the City of Berkeley during the early stages of project design review). (See pages IV.A-22 and C-26 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.)

12 Page 12 With respect to cumulative historic resources impacts, the University would comply with LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a) (requiring review by the campus DRC of the design of projects) and LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c) (requiring the campus to comply with all applicable laws regarding development that would affect historic resources and to avoid demolition or substantial alteration of historically significant structures unless necessary due to fiscal and programmatic requirements). (See page IV.D-17 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) Any cumulative construction-related air quality and noise impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (requiring the watering of construction sites, covering of materials, and appointing a contractor to ensure measures are implemented), LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (avoiding unnecessary idling of construction trucks), and LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure (requiring compliance with all applicable air quality law and regulations). (See pages IV.E-21 and 22, IV.F-17 of the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.) D. Mitigation Monitoring Program When making findings, a lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The monitoring program accompanying the Final EIR is designed to serve this purpose for the Project-specific mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. That program is hereby adopted and its implementation is hereby made a condition of the Approval. E. Fish and Game Fee The Regents hereby finds that, upon consideration of the record as a whole, there is no evidence before it that the Project has a potential for any new adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. No threatened, endangered, or protected animals, and no habitat necessary to sustain such animals have been found on the Project site. Because the Project will have no impacts on wildlife as defined in Section of the Fish & Game Code, the Project will not contribute to potential cumulative development impacts to such wildlife. The Regents hereby further finds, on the basis of substantial evidence in the record as a whole, that the presumption of adverse impacts to wildlife described in Section 753.5, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, has been rebutted. Accordingly, The Regents finds that the Project is exempt from the requirement of a filing fee payable to the State Department of Fish & Game. F. Alternatives The Final EIR evaluated six alternatives to the Project. The feasibility of each of the alternatives in light of the Project Objectives is addressed in the Findings below.

13 Page Project Objectives. The following Project Objectives are described in full in Chapter III of the Draft EIR. These objectives were considered when alternatives were identified which could feasibly attain these objectives. Each of the alternatives identified in the Final EIR has been evaluated herein in relation to the Project Objectives as described below: The objectives for the Project are: Implement the goals of the LRDP for housing, parking, student services, and Southside infill development that reduces reliance on temporary structures. Replace the parking capacity lost as a result of Parking Structure D demolition and recent on-campus construction in a manner that is generally consistent with the LRDP and that is feasible, safe and functional, and that limits impacts on surrounding neighbors and programs to the extent feasible. Restore the recreational sports field lost as result of Parking Structure D demolition (the parking structure originally included a sports field on its roof). Accommodate student demand for recreational facilities. Provide seismically safe facilities for students and staff in accordance with the University s Seismic Action Plan for Facilities Enhancement and Renewal (SAFER) program in a way that makes the best use of limited State money for facilities. Integrate Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 into the surrounding neighborhood and update uses. Locate new dining facilities close to the student population to be served and improve flexibility of the dining program. Achieve operational efficiency in University auxiliary facilities, including student services, dining facilities and parking. Improve operational and maintenance status of residential student living facilities. Improve safety and accessibility in the Southside area. Efficiently use existing University properties, especially underused and in-fill sites.

14 Page 14 Reduce University demand for leased space in the City, as suggested by the LRDP. Provide facilities that complement and enhance the Southside neighborhood. Plan, design and implement the proposed project within the practical constraints of available funding sources. Implement projects included in the 1990 LRDP. 2. Evaluation of Alternatives No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the University would not develop any component of the Project and the existing land uses in the Underhill area would remain. This Alternative would not cause the land use, circulation and parking, historic resources, air quality and noise impacts associated with the Project. However, this Alternative would not implement the goals of the LRDP for the Underhill area, including development of student housing, and surface parking would continue to be the dominant land use on the Underhill block and at the College-Durant site. The dining facilities in Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 would remain in a seismically unsafe condition, exposing University students and staff to ongoing seismic safety impacts. In addition, Fox Cottage would remain in an existing, deteriorating setting and would not be rehabilitated. This Alternative would not meet any of the Project Objectives. LRDP Development Alternative Under the LRDP Development Alternative, only the projects that were described in the LRDP for the Underhill area would be developed. As a result, the former Parking Structure D and sports field would not be replaced, and the Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 dining facilities and Fox Cottage would not be demolished or relocated. This Alternative would result in fewer land use, traffic and circulation, and historic resources impacts than the Project, and it would not require an amendment to the LRDP. However, this Alternative would not consolidate the area s parking supply within the Underhill parking structure, which is considered a beneficial impact of the Project. In addition, the dining facilities of the Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 would remain in a seismically unsafe condition. Although this Alternative would meet some of the Project Objectives, it would not meet the Project Objectives of fully replacing the parking lost at Parking Structure D, restoring the sports field, meeting student demand for recreational facilities and providing seismically safe facilities. It also would not achieve operational efficiencies in the University auxiliary and residential student living facilities or efficiently use University properties.

15 Page 15 Reduced Program Alternative The Reduced Program Alternative would be similar to the Project in that the same uses would occur, but the number of parking spaces and student beds would be reduced from the Project by 25 percent and office space would be less. Under this Alternative, land use, circulation and parking, visual, air quality and noise impacts would be generally less than those generated by the Project. However, this Alternative would not reduce the University s demand for leased space in the City of Berkeley and would not promote as effectively as the Project the LRDP goals to provide student housing, parking and infill development in the Underhill area. Increased vehicle circulation and trips could result under this Alternative due to fewer on-street parking spaces and fewer student beds within walking distance of the Central Campus. Like the Project, this Alternative would require an amendment to the LRDP to develop the Central Dining and Office Facility on a site identified for housing in the LRDP and for the demolition of Fox Cottage. Although this Alternative promotes many Project Objectives to a degree, it would not replace the full parking capacity lost as a result of the Parking Structure D demolition, would not achieve operational efficiencies or efficiently use University properties because more than one parking structure would be required. Reduced Program and Expanded Housing Alternative The Reduced Program and Expanded Housing Alternative would include fewer parking spaces at the Underhill lot, reduced office space, a smaller sports field and more beds of student housing than the Project. The dining facilities in Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 would be demolished, and Fox Cottage would be demolished to clear the site for the Central Dining and Office Facility. A variant to this Alternative would relocate Fox Cottage to the Shorb House parking lot. Under this Alternative, land use, circulation and parking, visual and air quality impacts would be generally less than those generated by the Project. In addition, this Alternative would provide 110 more beds of student housing than the Project, to be located on the northern portion of the Underhill parking lot site. This Alternative would require amendments to the LRDP for the Central Dining and Office Facility, demolition or relocation of Fox Cottage and the additional student housing. Because of the reduced size of the non-housing components, this Alternative would not meet the Project Objectives to replace the sports field and full parking capacity lost with the demolition of Parking Structure D. The reduced number of parking spaces would lead to an increase in vehicle circulation in the area. In addition, this Alternative would not achieve operational efficiencies as well as the Project, would not reduce the University s demand for leased space in the City and would not efficiently use University properties. Dispersed Program Alternative The Dispersed Program Alternative would involve relocating many components of the Project to other locations within the campus vicinity; the housing component of the Project would be the same and remain at the same locations as for the Project. Fox Cottage would be retained in its current location, and the dining facilities at Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 would be retained and seismically reinforced. This Alternative would result in land use,

16 Page 16 circulation and parking, and air quality impacts similar to the Project, but the impacts would be dispersed throughout the campus. Although the dining facilities of the Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 and the Fox Cottage would be retained, this Alternative would result in the demolition of a building on the CRHR the University Art Museum to accommodate the office space. This Alternative would meet in part some Project Objectives. However, it would not implement LRDP goals for additional parking and student services in the Southside area of the campus, would not efficiently use the University s property, would not improve the operation and maintenance of the University s auxiliary facilities and student housing, and would not use the University s financial resources most effectively. Dispersed Program and Expanded Office Alternative The Dispersed Program and Expanded Office Alternative would be identical to the Dispersed Program Alternative, except that the office space would be increased from 65,000 square feet to about 149,000 square feet. This Alternative would generally result in more severe impacts than the Project, and it would fail to meet the Project Objectives in the same way as the Dispersed Program Alternative. Moreover, this Alternative could have more adverse environmental impacts if the increase in office space results in an increase in University staff over the LRDP population levels. Environmentally Superior Alternative The No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it would not result in some of the impacts identified for the Project. Due to reduced trip generation and associated vehicular emissions, as well as reduced land use and historical resource impacts, the other environmentally superior alternative is the Reduced Program and Expanded Housing Alternative. G. Statement of Overriding Considerations The Regents has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project, and has determined that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and other information in the record, including but not limited to the LRDP, LRDP EIR and the SAFER program. The reasons for the approval of the Project despite the occurrence of significant unavoidable adverse impacts are as follows: 1. The Project would reduce the University s demand for leased space in the City by providing approximately 46,000 gross square feet of office space in the Central Dining and Office Facility. As a result, the University would reduce the potential for displacement of commercial tenants and loss of City tax revenue.

17 Page The Project would allow the University s Department of Housing, Dining and Childcare Services to centralize various customer services, provide adequate public space for those services and unite currently disbursed administrative units. 3. The Project would promote the University s SAFER program by demolishing the seismically poor dining facilities at Residence Hall Complex Units 1 and 2 and replacing them with the seismically safe Central Dining and Office Facility, thereby reducing seismic risks to students and staff on the campus. In addition, the Central Dining and Office Facility will be constructed to standards that will allow it to function as an emergency center during a major catastrophe. 4. The Project will provide approximately 900 units of student housing in close proximity to the Central Campus, meeting a portion of the University s unmet demand for student housing. In addition, the close proximity of this student housing to the Central Campus will reduce the need for commuter trips to the campus, thereby having a beneficial impact on traffic and circulation, noise and air quality. 5. The Project will provide 1,000 parking spaces in the new parking structure, meeting the demand created by the reduction in parking spaces that resulted from the demolition of the former Parking Structure D in 1993, from construction projects on the campus, and from the loss of spaces associated with the development of surface parking lots as part of the Project. 6. The Project will retain the Fox Cottage, which is a historical resource, by relocating it to other University-owned land in the Underhill area vicinity. H. Incorporation by Reference The text of the Final EIR, the 1990 LRDP, the 1990 LRDP EIR, and the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1990 LRDP, are hereby incorporated into these Findings in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of associated significant unavoidable adverse impacts. I. Summary 1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, The Regents has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the Project identified in the Final EIR: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment.