EIR-addendum3

A map of the area surveyed for available parking is shown at right (reproduced from Figure 4.2-3 of the Final EIR). This area was surveyed for parking by two different traffic-engineering firms on two different Friday evenings and Saturday mornings (the time of peak demand for the local residential uses). A summary of available parking is shown below:

Parking Within 1 Block

234 Total Spaces

151 Spaces Used on a Friday Evening

83 Spaces Available

Parking Within 1/4 Mile

909 Total Spaces

608 Spaces Used on a Saturday Morning

301 Spaces Available (78 available within one block of the project site)

The parking analysis in the EIR concluded that two off-site parking spaces would be needed to accommodate attendance at typical Friday services, compared to an available supply of 87 spaces. The parking analysis in the EIR also concluded that 33-60 off-site parking spaces would be needed to accommodate typical Saturday morning services, compared to an available supply of 78 spaces within one block and 305 spaces within _ mile.

Peak parking demand would occur on High Holy Days, when up to 210 off-site parking spaces would be needed. As shown, approximately 305 spaces would be available, resulting in sufficient parking to accommodate this peak demand.

Because sufficient parking is projected to be available to meet the needs of existing uses and the proposed synagogue, the EIR concluded that no significant impacts related to parking would result.

The Final EIR also concluded that traffic levels in the vicinity of the site would continue to function at acceptable levels (Level of Service A or B) at peak hours with the addition of project-related traffic. At off-peak hours, congestion levels would be lower, also resulting in acceptable levels of service.

As discussed earlier, the proposed revisions to the site plan for the facility reduce the number of on-site spaces to a total of 31. However, the number of off-site spaces available for use by patrons of the proposed facility would still exceed demand (including existing residential demand), with the result that no new impacts would result.

Note: As identified in the Final EIR, the frequency of the use of on-street parking by patrons of the proposed project, while not resulting in significant environmental impacts, should be considered by the City's decision-makers in determining the appropriateness of the proposed project and the grant or denial of the requested Use Permit. The additional operations described in the Second Addendum would increase the number of times per year when patrons would use on-street parking; however, no operations have been identified which would exceed the supply of on-street parking or create new impacts not identified in the Final EIR.

Noise As discussed in the Final EIR, the standard for determining the significance of noise impacts used in the analysis was the City of Berkeley Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance specifies that the maximum acceptable noise level for R-1 and R-2 zoning districts during daytime hours (defined as 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) is 55 dB; during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), the standard is 45 dB. The impact analysis in the Final EIR considered the potential impacts of the "worst-case" eventsÑfor the Final EIR, these included the operation of Camp Kee Tov and regular Friday/Saturday services, when peak traffic/parking and outdoor activity on the site would occur.

The noise analysis prepared for the Final EIR (and updated in the First Addendum) concluded that the noise threshold used in the Final EIR would be exceeded under only one scenario examined: operations of Camp Kee Tov. For that scenario (which envisioned 375 youth participants, 90 staff, and a total of 368 vehicle trips during the morning drop-off period and 321 vehicle trips during the afternoon pickup), the noise analysis indicated that the maximum noise levels established by the City's Community Noise Ordinance (BMC Section 13.40 et seq.) could be exceeded by 4 dB. In response, the Final EIR contains Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2:

MM4.3-2 Upon completion of the project and operation of Camp Kee Tov staging, noise levels at the north property line shall be measured by the City of Berkeley to determine whether the City's standard of 55 dB L50 is being exceeded. If noise levels are exceeded, the City shall require one of the following:

1) Using a barrier performance methodology, a property line barrier 7-feet in height shall be installed to reduce hourly parking lot noise levels to less than 55 dB L50. The barrier shall be constructed along the project site's northern property line, or

2) Camp Kee Tov operations shall be reduced, based on consultation with the City and a qualified acoustical engineer, to a level at which the City's standard of 55 dB L50 would not be exceeded. This may be accomplished by reducing the number of buses staged on the project site at any one time, operations restrictions (such as limits on bus idling), or any other appropriate and enforceable measure or measures. Upon implementation of these measures, noise levels shall be measured again to verify compliance with the City's noise standards.

Responsibility to Implement: Applicant

Responsibility to Monitor: City of Berkeley

Timing: If required, the 7-foot soundwall shall be indicated on subsequent design plans.

Projected noise levels for the Sunday Midrasha program (assuming an average attendance of 130 students) are projected at up to 54 dBÑone dB less than the permitted noise level per the Berkeley Community Noise Ordinance.

The updated information on the Sunday Midrasha program provided in the Second Addendum indicated that attendance could be higher than was anticipated in the Final EIRÑan average of 150 students are anticipated to attend on a regular basis, and up to 300 could attend the first and second class sessions each year. For 8 of the 30 sessions, however, half of the students are off-site at retreats, which would reduce on-site attendance to 75-80 during those periods. Based on the revised enrollment numbers, the noise levels projected for Midrasha could be higher than originally anticipated. However, the potential for noise exceeding the City's Community Noise Ordinance criteria has been identified in the Final EIR, and the measures contained in MM 4.3-2 can be applied to Midrasha operations if necessary to achieve compliance with the City's noise standards.

The updated event information presented in the Second Addendum also noted that up to 45 Bar and Bat Mitzvahs could occur on-site each year, of which 25-35 would involve a social event. In most cases, the event would be a luncheon after the Saturday services from 12:30 to about 3 p.m. but 5 to 10 could involve a Saturday evening social event including music. Members of Congregation Beth El could also hold 5 to 10 weddings or other events usually on Saturday evening or Sunday afternoon. A portion of each event could take place outdoors, resulting in potential noise impacts.

The proposed relocation of the parking area and access roadway would have the effect of reducing noise impacts to areas outside the site by moving the location of staging/Midrasha activities farther from adjacent homes; however, Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 would be applied to address any impacts created.

The placement of a parking area in the southwest corner of the site could result in potential noise impacts affecting adjacent residences to the west and south. However, this parking area is located generally farther from existing homes than the parking area originally proposed (in the northeast corner of the site), and is smaller. However, this type of impact has been identified in the Final EIR, and the monitoring and mitigation provided in Mitigation Measure MM4.3-2 would be applied to this location as well.

Although the updated information presented in this Third Addendum indicates that noise impacts may result, these impacts are not anticipated to further exceed the City's noise standards, and no significant impacts have been identified that were not examined in the Final EIR.

Biology

As noted in the Final EIR, one of the largest existing trees on the project site is a mature monkey puzzle (Araucaria araucana) see photo at right. This non-native tree is located in the southwest portion of the site, and would be retained as part of the site's landscaping. (Note: As discussed below, the monkey puzzle tree was also identified by the Landmarks Preservation Commission's subcommittee in 1998 as a site feature worthy of preservation.)

In the Final EIR, no impacts to the monkey puzzle tree were noted; the site plan proposed at that time included no development within the dripline of the tree, with the result that no effects to the tree were anticipated. The revised site plan discussed in this Third Addendum, however, places a proposed parking area within the dripline of the monkey puzzle tree, resulting in potential impacts to this tree.

In order to determine potential impacts to the monkey puzzle tree as the result of the placement of parking within its dripline, a professional arborist (Barrie Coates, letter of July 30, 2001 attached) was consulted. Foothill Associates (the City's biological consultant for the preparation of the Final EIR) reviewed the arborist's report, found the conclusions to be sound, and concurred with the report's recommendations.

The arborist concluded that potential impacts to the monkey puzzle tree would be generally the same as those identified in the Final EIR for existing Coast live oaks; both tree species have similar root systems and would be similarly affected by paving and compaction in the root zone. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM4.6-5 in the Final EIR should be applied to any development occurring within the dripline of the monkey puzzle tree.

In addition, the arborist recommended the following:

1) An arborist should remove any fully developed but still unripe fruit each year before the fruits fall.

2) Excavation in the dripline of the monkey puzzle tree should not remove more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total volume of roots, and excavation (if any) should occur on one side of the tree only and no closer than fifteen feet (15') to the trunk of the tree.

With the addition of these items to MM4.6-5, impacts to the monkey puzzle tree would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

It should also be noted that the removal of development from the area north of Codornices Creek also eliminates entirely the potential impacts to Coast live oak trees examined in the Final EIR, since no parking areas or access drives would be placed under those trees.

Historical Resources

As discussed in the Final EIR, no historical resources (as defined for the purpose of implementing the California Environmental Quality Act) exist onsite; therefore, no impacts related to historic resources would occur as the result of the development of the proposed project.

However, the Final EIR, in section 4.7.6, "Additional Information for LPC and ZAB Consideration," noted that a subcommittee of the City's Landmarks Preservation Commission had in 1998 prepared a report on the project site, which recommended the retention of a number of existing landscape and other features. The LPC subcommittee's report included the following recommendation:

· ". . . the Auracaria (Monkey Puzzle tree) should be preserved together with the line of Cyprus trees on the south property line."

As noted above, potential impacts to the monkey puzzle tree resulting from the development of a proposed parking lot can be mitigated through the implementation of a mitigation measure provided in the Final EIR and limits on grading within the tree's root zone.

However, as discussed in this Third Addendum, one modification to the project is the proposed removal of the existing line of cypress trees at the southern property line adjacent to the McLoughlin property; these trees were anticipated to remain in place under the site and landscaping plans analyzed in the Final EIR.

The removal of the cypress trees would not result in an environmental impact (as noted above, no historic resources as defined for purposes of environmental analysis exist onsite), and is consistent with the recommendations of the City's Design Review Board, which considered the proposed development in January 31, 2001.

Secondly, The Final EIR did not consider modifications to the Oxford Street wall and gates that would be necessary to accommodate the revised project entry and community overlook. While the gate and its posts (and the "retaining" wall, if documented as being original) were identified in a 1998 LPC subcommittee report as "historical elements which É should be reused, preserved or restored;" the FEIR did note that these elements were not from the Byrne period and thus not historic resources as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the alteration and reconstruction of certain portions of these elements would not create an environmental impact.

Conclusions

Based on the analysis of the proposed revisions to the site plan shown in this Third Addendum, none of the following criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines sec. 15162 are met by these changes. Therefore, an Addendum under section 15164 is the appropriate CEQA document. The criteria listed in CEQA ¤15162 , and the proposed revision's relationship to these criteria, are summarized below:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

No substantial changes in the project have been identified; the revisions to the site plan have been made to respond to community concerns and reduce potential impacts on adjacent land uses and the area north of Codornices Creek. Based on the analysis in this Addendum, no new impacts would be created, and no previously identified impacts would be substantially increased in severity. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

The proposed changes in the project do not relate to any changes in the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.

(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

As discussed in this Third Addendum, the reason for preparing this document is the preparation of a revised site plan. No new information has been presented which would alter any of the conclusions of the Final EIR with respect to the severity of impacts or the ability of mitigation measures to address project impacts. Therefore, these criteria do not apply.