700 university avenue - city of berkeley

Z O N I N G

A D J U S T M E N T S

B O A R D

S t a f f R e p o r t

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION MAY 14, 2009

700 University Avenue Use Permit #09-70000002 to modify the project description and a condition of approval relating to the use of air filters for the residential units within a project approved by the ZAB in 2007 for a mixed use development with 171 dwelling units (31 below-market) and 9,995 square feet of new commercial floor area (CW - Commercial West Berkeley, GPowell). I. Application Basics

A. Zoning Permits Required: • Use Permit Modification, under BMC Section 23B.56.020.

B. CEQA Determination: On March 22, 2007, the Zoning Adjustments Board held a public

hearing, took testimony from the public, certified the Environmental Impact Report and approved the project. Staff reviewed Section 15162 of the CEQA Guideline and has determined that the proposed change to the project requires adoption of an EIR Addendum.

C. Applicant: Essex Property Trust, 925 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303

ATTACHMENT 3ZAB 10-08-09 of 33

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 700 UNIVERSITY AVENUE May 14, 2009 of 9

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

ATTACHMENT 3ZAB 10-08-09Page 2 of 33


Figure 2: Site Plan



Table 1: Land Use Information

Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation

Subject Property Under Construction C-W Avenue Commercial North Parking lot/small office C-W Avenue Commercial South Takara Sake MU-LI Manufacturing East Grocery Outlet C-W Avenue Commercial

Surrounding Properties

West Railroad tracks C-W Avenue Commercial Table 2: Special Characteristics

Characteristic Applies

to Project?

Explanation

Affordable Housing Mitigations

No The project incorporated affordable housing units and is not subject to Ordinance 56,912 regarding payment of affordable housing mitigation fees.

Childcare Mitigations Yes

The project incorporated more than 7,500 sq ft of new retail floor area and is subject to Ordinance 56,913 regarding payment of childcare mitigation fees.

Creeks No Strawberry Creek is located in a culvert north of the site.

Density Bonus Yes The applicant received a density bonus of 16 additional units & one concession (fifth floor) under State Government Code Section 65915.

Fire Zone Yes In Fire Zone 1, which contains no restrictions other than compliance with the Uniform Fire Code.

Flood Zone No The project site is outside the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. Green Building No The building is not a green building. Inclusionary Housing Yes The project will provide 31 Inclusionary units as required by BMC

Chapter 23C.12, Inclusionary Housing.

Noise Yes The project site is within an area that has existing noise levels that require special design considerations. The project will comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.

Redevelopment Area No

The site is not located within a redevelopment area, but the West Berkeley Redevelopment Area lies directly across University Avenue.

Seismic Hazards Yes

The site is within a potential liquefaction area. The project will comply with the Geotechnical Report recommendations, which will mitigate the seismic hazards.

Soil/Groundwater Contamination No

The Phase I and Phase II reports did not indicate any existing soil/groundwater contamination from the site, and the proposed uses will not generate such contamination.

Transit Yes

AC Transit: FS and G Transbay, 9 and 51 routes serve the site. BART: The North Berkeley station is about 1 mile northeast of the site, and the Downtown Berkeley Station is less than 2 miles from the site. AMTRAK: The West Berkeley station abuts the site.



Table 3: Project Chronology Date Action June 17, 2004 Applicant: Use Permit #04-10000069 Submitted May 12, 2006 City: Draft EIR published June 26, 2006 City: Draft EIR public comment period closed March 22, 2007 ZAB: Certified Final EIR and approved Use Permit June 26, 2007 City Council: Dismissed Appeal to approve project September 2008 Applicant: Start of Construction November 18, 2008 Applicant: Use Permit Modification #08-70000002 Submitted May 14, 2009 ZAB: Consideration of Use Permit Modification

Table 4: Development Standards

Standard BMC Chapter 23E.64 Existing Proposed

Total Permitted/ Required

Lot Area (sq. ft.) 74,710 74,710 N/A

Residential Floor Area (sq. ft.) N/A 163,689 No Limit

Non-Residential Floor Area (sq. ft.) N/A 10,000 No Limit

Total Floor Area (sq. ft.) N/A 173,684 224,130

Floor Area Ratio N/A 2.32 3

Dwelling Units Total N/A 171 N/A

Average N/A 50’ 50’ Building Height

Stories N/A 5 4

University Avenue - North N/A 0 0

Addison Street - South N/A 0’ 0

3RD Street/UPRR - West N/A 53’ 0

Building Setbacks

Fourth Street - East N/A 0 0 II. Project Setting

A. Neighborhood/Area Description: The neighborhood and surrounding area includes older industrial and commercial buildings. Aquatic Park is located two blocks to the west. Implementation of the Aquatic Park Connection Streetscape Improvement Project1 is underway and will alter the streetscape in the area to increase visitation to the City park facilities at the Marina and Aquatic Park, to the newly developing habitat and visitor-serving amenities at Eastshore State Park, and to the retail amenities of Fourth Street. To

1 The Berkeley Redevelopment Agency will implement this project; project completion is expected by 2010.



the west of the project site, the ZAB recently approved a use permit for a residential development project at 651 Addison Street to include 94 residential units, 2,584 square feet of commercial floor area. The site abuts the Union Pacific Rail line to the west, I-80 is over 800 feet to the west and University Avenue abuts the site to the north. At the northwest corner of the site is the former Southern Pacific Railroad station constructed in 1913. This building was designated as a City of Berkeley Landmark on March 5, 2001.

B. Site Conditions: The approximately two-acre site is located within a designated

commercial node in the West Berkeley Plan. The relatively flat site is bounded by an elevated portion of University Avenue on the north, Addison Street on the south, Fourth Street on the east, and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks on the west. The site has been used most recently for restaurants, including Brennan’s (which now operates in the former Southern Pacific Railroad station), as well as Celia’s and Xanadu (now closed) and associated parking.

C. Background: On June 26, 2007, the City Council adopted a Resolution affirming the

decisions of the Zoning Adjustments Board to certify the Final EIR and to approve Use Permit #04-10000069 to allow the demolition of two restaurant buildings along Fourth Street, the reuse of the Landmark Train Depot as Brennan's Restaurant, and the construction of a mixed-use development with 171 dwelling units (31 below-market), 9,995 square feet of new commercial floor area and 213 vehicle parking spaces. Construction of this mixed-use project is currently underway.

III. Project Description

The approved project included air filtration systems for the dwellings, to include the use of High Efficiency Particulate Air2 (HEPA) filters. According to the applicant, after the project was approved in 2007, additional investigation and design work related to filtration systems was completed. Based on the results of a recent Health Risk Assessment (attachment 3), the applicant wishes to install an alternative filtration system to reduce the project's air impacts to a less than significant level in a more cost effective manner. Specifically, the applicant would install MERV3-rated filter systems that are smaller, and less expensive to install and operate, but would effectively reduce the project's impacts to a less than significant level.

To do so, the applicant requests that the project and Condition of Approval #56 be modified to replace the HEPA filter with a MERV-rated filter as shown in Table 5.

2 A HEPA air filter can remove at least 99.97% of dust, pollen, mold, bacteria and any airborne particles with a size of 0.3 micrometres. True HEPA rated air filters have an equivalent MERV rating of 17-20. 3 Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value, commonly known as MERV Rating is a measurement scale designed in 1987 by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) to rate the effectiveness of air filters. The scale is designed to represent the worst-case performance of a filter when dealing with particles in the range of 0.3 to 10 micrometres. Generally, the MERV rating is from 1 to 16. Higher MERV ratings correspond to a greater percentage of particles captured on each pass.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Heating,_Refrigerating_and_Air-Conditioning_Engineers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometre


Table 5: MERV Filters Location Floor/Use MERV Filter Rating

Near 3rd Street (SW corner of bldg footprint; 53’ from Rail Right-of-Way)

2. Residential 3. Residential 4. Residential 5. Residential

13 13 11 10

Between 3rd and 4th Street

1. Commercial 2. Residential 3. Residential 4. Residential 5. Residential

Not Needed 13 11 10 10

4th Street

1. Commercial 2. Residential 3. Residential 4. Residential 5. Residential

Not Needed 11 11 10 10

IV. Community Discussion

A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: A proposed development notice was erected on the site in November 2008. Per 23B.56.020.B, the application for a minor modification was not noticed as a public hearing.

B. Board/Committee Review: None Required.

V. Issues and Analysis

A. CEQA: 1. Air Quality: The CEQA significance threshold established by the Bay Area Air Quality

Management District (BAAQMD) for cancer risk is 10 in one million. Human health risk assessments evaluate the worst-case scenario for potential exposure of future residents to toxic air contaminants and consider toxic emissions generated by rail transport, freeway traffic, truck traffic and manufacturing operations. As with the analysis used for the 651 Addison Street mixed-use project to the west, the analysis of toxic air contaminants used for this project were conservative in that the Health Risk Assessment assumed that the project residents would be exposed to the ambient toxic air contaminants 24 hours per day, 350 days per year, for a period of 70 years.

The maximum predicted incremental cancer risk posed at the project site (unmitigated) would be 47 in one million for residents, which is above the CEQA significance threshold, and 9.8 in one million for workers in business at the site, which is below the CEQA significance threshold. To ensure that the potential cancer risks would be below the CEQA significance threshold, the approved project included HEPA filters for the residential units to improve indoor air quality to reduce the risk to a less than significant level. Because of the high efficiency of this filter, the risk for occupants would be reduced to .5 in one million, well below the CEQA significance threshold.

2. New Information: To support the use of the MERV filters, the applicant commissioned

a new Health Risk Assessment to study the air at the locations identified in Table 5



above. This study found that air quality varied by location and by height above ground level. This study also found that the maximum filtration efficiency level needed to reduce the cancer risk to below the CEQA significance threshold was 80%. Thus, instead of installing the same filter for all units, regardless of need, the 2008 Health Risk Assessment found that HEPA filters were not needed and that the type of filter within the project could vary depending on location. Thus, the use of the filters identified in Table 5 would reduce the cancer risk for the residential occupants to 8 in one million, below the CEQA significance threshold. While the MERV filters provide less filtration than the HEPA filters, the substitution is not meaningful under CEQA as the air quality with either filter would be below the significance threshold.

Air Quality was extensively studied as part of the EIR used for the recently approved project at 651 Addison Street. The 651 Addison Street project is located closer to the freeway and the rail line than the 700 University Avenue project, and thus the potential cancer risk is slightly higher. The 651 Addison Street EIR concluded that the minimum filtration efficiency level needed to reduce the cancer risk to below the CEQA significance threshold was 80% and that a MERV 14 filter was needed. Based on Staff’s experience with the 651 Addison Street project, staff supports the conclusions of the 2008 Health Risk Assessment conducted for the 700 University Avenue project.

3. CEQA - Addendum: The request to change the project to replace the HEPA filter with a MERV filter does not trigger any of the elements in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requiring a subsequent EIR or a supplement to the EIR per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163. Specifically, where there are changes to the project description, the CEQA Guidelines ask whether those changes, either substantive (15162) or minor (15163), would "require major revisions to 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." See Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(l) and 15162(a)(2).

Based on the characteristics in this case, Staff has concluded that CEQA requires preparation of an Addendum, rather than a subsequent EIR or a supplement to the EIR, for the following reasons: • There have not been substantial changes to the project that would require major

revisions of the previous document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

• There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would require major revisions to the previous document due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and

• There has not been new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the previous EIR was certified that shows the project would have one or more significant effects not discussed previously or that significant effects previously identified would be substantially more severe than originally identified.

In summary, as the changes are minor and would not involve a new significant environmental effects, an addendum was prepared.



B. Changes needed to Use Permit #04-10000069: In addition to the findings made by the Board to approve Use Permit #04-10000069, the Zoning Adjustments Board would need to find that the change to the project description to substitute MERV-rated filters for HEPA filters for the residential units and the related change to Condition of Approval #56, would not be detrimental. Staff recommends that the Board make this finding for the following reasons: • The changes will not introduce potential for new detriment; • The use of MERV-rated filters for the residential units would reduce the risk for

occupants to 8 in one million, below the CEQA significance threshold established by BAAQMD of 10 in one million;

• The basis for the original findings for approval continue to apply.

In addition to added findings to reflect the change in the project, a revision to Condition of Approval #56 is needed as follows:

#56 Air filtration systems, which include the use of MERV-rated air filters High Efficiency

Particulate Air (HEPA) filters, would be installed in the North and South Buildings. VI. Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board: A. ADOPT the attached Addendum to the EIR; and B. APPROVE Use Permit #09-70000002 pursuant to Section 23B.32.040 and subject to the

attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1).

Attachments: 1. Finding and Conditions 2. EIR Addendum 3. October 22, 2008 Health Risk Assessment, Prepared by Levine*Fricke 4. Pages 18-19, Air Quality Chapter, 2006 EIR + March 2, 2006 Letter, Prepared by Levine*Fricke Staff Planner: Greg Powell, [email protected], (510) 981-7414


mailto:[email protected]

A t t a c h m e n t 1

F i n d i n g s a n d C o n d i t i o n s May 14, 2009

700 University Avenue Use Permit Modification #09-70000002 of Use Permit #04-10000069 INTRODUCTION

Only the modified Findings or Conditions are included; all other findings or conditions shall continue to apply except for the following: GENERAL NON-DETRIMENT FINDING FOR USE PERMIT MODIFICATION #09-70000002:

In addition to the findings made by the Board to approve Use Permit #04-10000069, the Zoning Adjustments Board finds that the change to the project description to substitute MERV-rated filters for HEPA filters for the residential units and the related change to Condition of Approval #56, under the circumstances of the particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City, for the following reasons: A. The changes will not introduce potential for new detriment; B. The use of MERV-rated filters for the residential units would reduce the risk for occupants

to 8 in one million, below the CEQA significance threshold established by BAAQMD of 10 in one million;

C. The basis for the original findings for approval continue to apply; and D. The Board has considered the modified project, the previously adopted environmental

determination, and the information submitted in the staff report, and found that adoption of an EIR Addendum is adequate for the modified project.

REVISIONS NEEDED TO USE PERMIT #04-10000069 TO REFLECT MODIFIED PROJECT: #56 Air filtration systems, which include the use of MERV-rated air filters High Efficiency

Particulate Air (HEPA) filters, would be installed in the North and South Buildings.


Attachment 2 Zoning Adjustments Board, May 14, 2008 Meeting

Addendum - Project Description, Prepared April 2008 700 University Avenue Use Permit #09-70000002 BACKGROUND: After the publication and certification of the Final EIR for the 700 University Avenue project, the applicant presented a request to revise the project description and a condition of approval related to the use of HEPA air filters for the residential units. This change would not result in any substantive change to the description of the Project, the Project Objectives or the discussion of Project-related environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the EIR. It requires only the following modifications in the text of that document. DESCRIPTION: In the Draft EIR, the text on Page III-66 is modified to read as follows:

Air filtration systems, which include the use of MERV-rated air filters High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters, would be installed in the North and South Buildings.

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGES: The EIR used to approve the project in 2007 included a human health risk assessment to evaluate the worst-case scenario for potential exposure of future residents to toxic air contaminants. This assessment considered toxic emissions generated by rail transport, freeway traffic, truck traffic and manufacturing operations. Like other recent air quality studies, the analysis of toxic air contaminants in this EIR was conservative in that it assumed that the project residents would be exposed to the ambient toxic air contaminants 24 hours per day, 350 days per year, for a period of 70 years. The CEQA significance threshold established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for cancer risk is 10 in one million. The maximum predicted incremental cancer risk posed at the project site (unmitigated) would be 47 in one million for residents, which is above the CEQA significance threshold established by BAAQMD, and 9.8 in one million for workers in business at the site, which is below the CEQA significance threshold. To ensure that the potential cancer risks would be below the CEQA significance threshold established by BAAQMD, the project description of the approved project included the installation of filters for the residential units to improve indoor air quality to reduce the risk to a less than significant level.

Based on the 2008 Health Risk Assessment, the use of MERV-rated filters for the residential units would reduce the risk for occupants to 8 in one million, below the CEQA significance threshold established by BAAQMD. The methodology used in this study is consistent with the Air Quality studies conducted for the recently approved project at 651 Addison Street. As 651 Addison Street is located closer to the freeway and the rail line than this project, the potential cancer risk is slightly higher, and thus a more efficient filter - a MERV 14 - was deemed necessary. Based on Staff’s experience with the 651 Addison Street project, staff supports the conclusions of the 2008 Health Risk Assessment conducted for the 700 University Avenue project. REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION OF AN ADDENDUM: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), §15164 provides for the preparation of an Addendum to a Final EIR. §15164 states in part:

“(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”


ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 700 UNIVERISTY AVENUE Attachment 2 May 14, 2009 Page 2 of 2

§15162 requires preparation of a Subsequent EIR in the following cases:

(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; (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 (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 above in this Addendum, none of the provisions of §15162 apply to the revision to the project description because the use of MERV-rated filters would reduce the risk for occupants to 8 in one million, below the CEQA significance threshold established by BAAQMD, and the revised project description does not:

1. Introduce a substantial change to the project or include any new environmental effects on an increase to the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Change any circumstances under which the project would be undertaken; 3. Provide any new information of substantial importance to show that:

The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; A more severe effect of an identified impact that than previously shown in the EIR; A mitigation measure or alternative found in the EIR to be infeasible is now feasible; or A mitigation measure or alternative which is considerably different from those identified in

the EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Rather, this addendum provides an update to the project description. Therefore, an Addendum (rather than a Subsequent EIR) has been prepared. Pursuant to CEQA (§15164(c)),

“An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.”

Therefore, this Addendum has not been circulated for public review, but is provided as an attachment to the Final EIR. The 2008 Health Risk Assessment is attached to this Addendum and is incorporated by reference.


Date: October 22, 2008 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

To: Greg Powell, Senior Planner, City of Berkeley

From: Douglas Wolf, Principal Engineer

Subject: Revised Risk Analysis for 700 University Avenue

Essex Property Trust is requesting a change in its project description and Use Permit Condition of

Approval (COA) #56 issued by the City of Berkeley Planning Department for the development

project located at 700 University Avenue in Berkeley, California (“the Site”). The project

description and COA #56 currently require that the North and South buildings at the Site be

equipped with high efficiency filters (HEPA filters) to effectively reduce future occupant’s

exposure to diesel particulate matter (Diesel PM) to less than significant levels. Since the submittal

of the initial project description, LFR has concluded that in lieu of a HEPA filtration system,

MERV filters would be sufficient to lower the lifetime cancer risk from Diesel PM to less than

significant levels at the Site.

It is our understanding that using MERV filters at the Site instead of HEPA filters as initially

stated would require modification of the project description and Use Permit COA #56, as well as a

review under section 15162. Therefore, LFR conducted a quantitative health risk assessment for

the Site using the same methodology as the health risk assessment conducted for the 651 Addison

project (across the railroad tracks from the Site) and determined the appropriate MERV filters

required at various locations at the Site.

Air Dispersion Modeling

Since the air dispersion modeling and methodology to determine the Diesel PM concentrations at

651 Addison were approved by the City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Department, Essex

Property Trust retained the same consultant (ESA) to conduct air dispersion modeling for the Site.

The air dispersion modeling conducted by ESA (attached) estimated the Diesel PM concentrations

at 13 various points on the Site (as shown on Figure 1); with and without the installation of a third

rail system. These points were strategically chosen to represent the wide array of potential Diesel

PM exposure concentrations for various future occupants at the Site (i.e., residents on the first

floor closest to the railroad tracks, residents located on the fourth floor along 4th street, retail

locations, etc.).

Per Table 1 of the attached report by ESA, the maximum 70-year lifetime exposure concentration

at the site is 0.17 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). This maximum exposure concentration for

the Site is less than the maximum exposure concentration determined for 651 Addison (0.19

µg/m3) using the same air dispersion modeling. The lower concentrations at the Site are due to the

dilution of Diesel PM over distance, as the Site is located further from the highway and further

from the rail tracks than the 651 Addison Street project location.


Revised Risk Analysis for 700 University Avenue

Final memo 10-22-08.doc:D 2

Risk Assessment

Based on the air dispersion modeling results for the Site provided by ESA, LFR performed a

health risk assessment for the Site’s future occupants. Cancer risk from exposure to Diesel PM

was estimated following California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)

guidelines. These guidelines dictate that continuous exposure to the maximum concentration at the

Site for 350 days per year, over a 70 year period, be considered for a residential receptor. The

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommends that a breathing rate of 302

L/kg-day be used in the calculations. The following equation, using the OEHHA established

cancer potency factor for Diesel PM (1.1 mg/kg-day), was used to estimate cancer risk at each of

the applicable locations at the Site.

Estimated cancer risk = (350 days/year * 70 years * 302 L/kg-day * Cair mg/m3)

(25,550 days) * 1.1 mg/kg-day

The ESA estimated concentrations and the associated risk estimates are presented in Table 1

prepared by LFR (Estimated Diesel PM Concentrations, Estimated Risk Results, Percent

Reductions, & MERV Filter Recommendations). To be conservative, the estimated cancer risks

were calculated assuming that the indoor air quality was the same as the outdoor air quality. LFR

estimated the cancer risks for each residential location under three diesel exposure conditions: (1)

without the third rail installation assumption, (2) with the third rail installation assumption, and (3)

with the additive cancer risk from Pacific Steel Casting Company to the third rail installation

assumption results. Based on information provided by ESA, the cancer risk contribution from the

Pacific Steel Casting Company Foundry is 1.5 in one million.

In addition, a commercial exposure scenario was calculated for the locations on the ground floor

between Third and Fourth Streets, and on Fourth Street. The OEHHA worker inhalation rate and

BAAQMD worker exposure duration were used in the risk estimation calculations. The same

Diesel PM concentrations provided by ESA were used. The exposure duration for commercial

locations is a 40-year exposure duration verses 70-year exposure duration for residential. The

ground floor in these areas will be used for retail purposes, and the commercial exposure scenario

best represents future use conditions. The estimated commercial cancer risks were calculated using

the following equation:

Estimated commercial cancer risk = (250 days/year * 40 years * 180 L/kg-day * Cair mg/m3)

(14,600 days) * 1.1 mg/kg-day

As with the residential risk estimates, the commercial risk estimates were calculated under the

three diesel exposure conditions. The results are presented in Table 1 prepared by LFR.

As shown in Table 1, the estimated risks for each of the residential locations are greater than the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance threshold established by the BAAQMD

of 10 in one million. In order to reduce maximum incremental cancer risks to less than 10 in one

million, residential filtration units would have to be equipped with filters capable or reducing

Diesel PM levels between 50% and 79%. Since all of the residential units have their own air

HVAC system intakes, it is feasible to install various MERV rated filters throughput the complex

to meet the cancer risk reduction requirements.


Revised Risk Analysis for 700 University Avenue

Final memo 10-22-08.doc:D 3

Filter efficiencies are rated by their Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV). For example,

according to ASHRAE Standard 52.2 Test Procedures, filters that meet a MERV rating of 13

remove 80% of the Diesel PM. A specification sheet from Air Guard, which shows the control

efficiencies of standard MERV rated filters, is attached to the memorandum. The MERV rating

required for the filters at 13 locations on the Site to reduce the lifetime cancer risk to less than 10

in one million is provided in Table 1. As can be seen, the MERV requirements for the locations

range from MERV 10 to MERV 13. Since the building HVAC system is centrally-controlled by a

thermostat, the MERV filter is on continuously, creating a positive pressure in the residential

units. As such, having the windows and/or sliding doors located in the residential units open will

not impact the Diesel PM reduction efficiency of the MERV filters.

Figure 2 through Figure 5 show the MERV ratings required for all residential buildings at various

heights above grade (HVAC intakes). Based on conservative extrapolation, the residential units

around the sampling locations were assigned MERV filter requirements as shown on Figure 2

through Figure 5. When assigning MERV filter requirements to non-modeled points, it was

assumed that there was a homogeneous distribution for each floor (height above grade) for

buildings parallel to the rail tracks and highway, and a linear distribution for each floor (height

above grade) for buildings perpendicular to the rail tracks and highway.

Therefore, with the use of the appropriate MERV filters designated in Table 1 and shown on

Figures 2 through 5, Essex Property Trust will be able to successfully reduce the lifetime cancer

risk to the future occupants at the Site to below significant levels.


Location

Approx. HVAC

Intake

Locations

(Height above

Grade; ft)

Exposure

Scenario

ESA

Estimated

DPM ug/m3

without 3rd

rail

LFR

Estimated

Risk without

3rd Rail

ESA

Estimated

DPM ug/m3

with 3rd rail

LFR

Estimated

Risk with 3rd

Rail

LFR Estimated

Risk with 3rd

Rail & PSCC

Percent

Reduction

Needed for

10 x 10-6

Considering

3rd Rail and

MERV Filter

Rating

Required to

Achieve

Reduction

18 Residential 0.15 4.0E-05 0.17 4.5E-05 4.7E-05 79% 13

29 Residential 0.12 3.2E-05 0.13 3.5E-05 3.6E-05 72% 13

39 Residential 0.08 2.1E-05 0.09 2.4E-05 2.6E-05 62% 11

47 Residential 0.06 1.6E-05 0.06 1.6E-05 1.8E-05 55% 10

19 Commercial 0.12 7.7E-06 0.13 8.3E-06 9.8E-06 NA NA

19 Residential 0.12 3.2E-05 0.13 3.5E-05 3.6E-05 72% 13

29 Residential 0.1 2.7E-05 0.10 2.7E-05 2.8E-05 64% 11

39 Residential 0.07 1.9E-05 0.08 2.1E-05 2.3E-05 57% 10

47 Residential 0.06 1.6E-05 0.06 1.6E-05 1.8E-05 55% 10

8 Commercial 0.11 6.4E-06 0.11 7.0E-06 8.5E-06 NA NA

19 Residential 0.1 2.7E-05 0.11 2.9E-05 3.1E-05 67% 11

29 Residential 0.09 2.4E-05 0.09 2.4E-05 2.6E-05 62% 11

39 Residential 0.07 1.9E-05 0.07 1.9E-05 2.0E-05 50% 10

47 Residential 0.05 1.3E-05 0.06 1.6E-05 1.8E-05 55% 10

NA = not applicable, estimated risk below CEQA Mitigation Trigger

bold = commercial scenario

PSCC = Pacific Steel Casting Company

DPM = diesel particulate matter pm2.5 350 days/year * 70 years * 302 L/kg-day*Cair

ug/m3 = microgram pre cubic meter 25,550 days * 1.1 mg/kg-day

PSCC = Pacific Steel Casting Company

250 days/year * 40 years * 180 L/kg-day*Cair

25,550 days * 1.1 mg/kg-day

residential risk =

commercial risk =

Near 3rd

Street

4th Street

Between

3rd & 4th

Streets

Table 1: Inhalation Exposure Pathway -- Carcinogens

Essex Property Evaluation

Estimated DPM Concentrations, Estimated Risk Results, Percent Reductions, & MERV Filter Recommendations


95% 30 - 40% MERV 7 - 8 Self-Supported Pocket FiltersRing Panel FiltersPleated Panel Filters

SynPak, Ultra II BagsDP 8 (MERV 8), DPGT,PowerGuard™ (MERV-11), DP Class 1,DPHTFresh Air™, Fresh Air™ Supreme

80 - 90% Less Than 20% MERV 5 Disposable Panel FiltersSynthetic Media

Automatic Roll Filter Media

Tri-Plex 85®

StreamLine™ Polyester Media

Types YTS, SHP, DMC, DL-1, DL-2

Arrestance Efficiency MERV Rating(1) (1) (2)

(1) Arrestance and Dust Spot Efficiency ratings are based on the ASHRAE 52.1 - 1992 test method.(2) Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) ratings are based on the ASHRAE 52.2 test method.

3

Filter Type Airguard Product Selection

99% 80 - 90% MERV 13 - 14 Extended Surface Pocket Filters Clean-Pak CP-8, Venti-Pak VP-8,Multi-Guard MG-8, Bio-Pure

99% 70 - 80% MERV 12 - 13 Extended Surface Pocket Filters Multi-Guard MG-7

Extended Surface Rigid Cell Filters Variflow, Variflow SC, Variflow CompactSeries, Variflow II, Vari+Plus, Vari-Pak,Vari-Pak Model S, Bio-Pure, Legacy 4”, V-Force

95% DOPNA MERV 16 Extended Surface Rigid Cell Filters Microguard® 95, Vari+Plus

Extended Surface Rigid Cell Filters Variflow, Variflow SC, Variflow CompactSeries, Variflow II, Variflow II-M,Variflow II-MC, Vari+Plus, Vari-Pak,Vari-Pak Model S, Legacy 12”Bio-Pure, X-treme, V-Force

99% 90 - 95% MERV 14 - 15 Extended Surface Pocket Filters Clean-Pak CP-9, Venti-Pak VP-9,Multi-Guard MG-9, Bio-Pure

Extended Surface Rigid Cell Filters Variflow®, Variflow SC, Variflow CompactSeries, Variflow II, Variflow II-M,Variflow II-MC, Vari+Plus®, Vari-Pak®,Vari-Pak Model S, Bio-Pure, V-Force

99% 60 - 70% MERV 10 - 11 Extended Surface Pocket Filters Clean-Pak CP-6, Venti-Pak VP-6Bio-Pure

99.97%99.99%99.999%99.9995%

NA NA Microguard 99, MicroPleat™HEPA/ULPA Filters

95 - 98% 50 - 60% MERV 9 - 10Extended Surface Pocket Filters Venti-Pak VP-5, Clean-Pak CP-5

Vari-Pak, Vari-Pak Model SExtended Surface Rigid Cell Filters

DP-65 (MERV 11)Pleated Panel Filters

95 - 98% 40 - 50% MERV 8 - 9 Extended Surface Pocket Filters Venti-Pak® VP-4, Clean-Pak™ CP-4

60 - 80% Less Than 20% MERV 1 - 4 Disposable Panel FiltersPermanent Metal FiltersFiberglass MediaLatex Coated Natural Fiber MediaFoam Media

Automatic Roll Filter Media

DisposablesTypes HS, HDStandard GradePermalast®

Foam Media

Types CF, DSF

MERV 6 - 790 - 95% 20 - 30% Self-Supported Pocket FiltersRing Panel FiltersPleated Panel Filters

Activator Series (2 Ply, 3 Ply),Series N, Bio•PureDP-40®, DP-40 Max, SC, DP4-SABio-Pure, X-treme


ATTACHMENT A

ESA Memorandum: Diesel PM modeling


225 Bush Street

Suite 1700

San Francisco, CA 94104

415.896.5900 phone

415.896.0332 fax

www.esassoc.com

memorandum

date September 22, 2008

to: Elizabeth Lake, Holland & Knight LLP

from Robert Vranka and Nichole Yeto

subject DPM modeling for 700 University Ave. Project

ESA was asked to estimate ambient air diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentrations at residential units to be

built at 700 University Avenue in Berkeley, CA. This memorandum describes the methodology used to model

DPM emissions from sources near the project site, and reports the estimated ambient air concentrations at the

project site locations.

Emissions Sources

Major sources of DPM identified in the project area include locomotives traveling on the Union Pacific Railroad

(UPRR) line and trucks traveling on Interstate 80 (I-80). Both sources are located west of the 700 University

Avenue site.

Emissions Rates

On March 14, 2008, the USEPA adopted new, more stringent emissions standards for locomotives and marine

compression-ignition engines. The new USEPA rule (regulation) will reduce DPM emissions in several ways. It

tightens emission standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured; sets near-term engine-out

emission standards (Tier 3) for newly built locomotives; and will set longer-term standards (Tier 4) for newly

built-locomotives that reflect the application of high-efficiency after-treatment technology.

The regulatory impact analysis of the new USEPA rule includes estimates of annual PM2.5 emissions from

locomotives for the years 2008 through 2040 as a result of the new regulation. Based on these estimates, 2040

emissions would be approximately 83% lower than 2008 emissions (USEPA, 2008). For purposes of this

analysis, emissions reductions were extrapolated out to 2044, at which point 85% reduction would be reached.1

From 2044 to 2080 it was assumed that emissions reductions would remain constant at 85% less than 2008 levels

and no further reductions would occur. This is a conservative analytic assumption since further reductions may

be mandated by the USEPA in the future. Furthermore, the USEPA annual emission estimates for locomotives

are based on the assumption that fuel consumption will continue to grow by approximately 1.6 percent per year.

1 Further study including consultation with the USEPA would be required to adjust the traffic and emissions increase projections for the

UPRR.


2

In other words, the USEPA emissions rates appear to incorporate projected increases in national rail traffic. Since

the methodology used for this project uses independently developed estimates of annual increases in traffic on the

tracks adjacent to the proposed project site and these estimates are expressed as an annual growth rate (1.57%)

which are almost the same as the USEPA rate of 1.6%, the analysis may be overstating emissions by a

considerable amount. Figure 1 shows the percent reduction in emissions from 2010 to 2080.

In addition to regulations set by the USEPA, recent ARB regulations requiring the use of particulate filters on

locomotives and new fuel reformulation would most likely increase the rate by which PM2.5 emissions rates are

reduced in the study area. However, such reductions were not factored into this study due to the fact that it is

uncertain how many of the locomotives will be traveling on interstate routes and thus will not be subject to ARB

regulations. Using a range of values for emission rates between 2010 and 2080 could provide additional

information regarding reductions; however this would require consultation with the USEPA and the ARB to

adjust the traffic and emissions increase projections for the proposed project site. For present purposes, it is

sufficient to note that the possible inflation of traffic and emissions renders this a conservative analysis.

Figure 1

Percent Reduction in PM2.5 Emissions From Locomotives a

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080

Percent Reduction from 2008 Emissions

a

Percent reductions from 2010 to 2040 are based on the USEPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis; Percent reductions past 2040 were

extrapolated assuming a maximum reduction of 85%.

Heavy duty truck emission rates were derived from the EMFAC2007 model. This model incorporates State and

federal regulations that have been adopted to reduce DPM emissions from on-road trucks, and it includes the

latest rule that reduces DPM emissions from 2007 and later model year trucks and buses by 85%. When

estimating emissions for future years, EMFAC2007 assumes a mix of model years, and it assumes that a certain

fraction of vehicles are older models (i.e., vehicles prior to 2007) that are not subject to the newest regulations.

EMFAC2007 factors in the phasing out (scrappage) of older model vehicles and the replacement of these trucks

with newer trucks that are subject to the 85% reduction. EMFAC2007 also factors in the ultra low sulfur diesel


3

(ULSD) fuel (15ppm sulfur) which has been required since October 2006. The model only predicts emission

rates out to the year 2040. Therefore, it was assumed that after 2040 emission rates would level off and that no

further decreases in emissions would occur. This is again a conservative analytic assumption since further

reductions may be mandated by USEPA and ARB.

Growth in Traffic

Based on analyses prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) and incorporated into the draft plan, the West

Berkeley Circulation Master Plan projects that rail traffic on the UPRR mainline tracks through West Berkeley

may increase to over 100 trains per day by 2030. The existing double-tracked mainline can only support around

100 trains per day, according to the WSA study. Currently an average of 44 Amtrak trains and 30 freight trains,

or a total of 74 trains, pass through West Berkeley each day. By 2030 it is projected that freight trips may

increase to up to 60 trips per day. This would restrict growth in passenger train trips unless a third rail is

constructed. (City of Berkeley, 2007)

Analysis Scenarios

DPM impacts have been evaluated based on two future scenarios. The first scenario assumes that a third rail will

not be constructed and that train traffic volumes thus would be capped at 104 trips per day, the capacity of the

existing two tracks according to the WSA analysis. The second scenario assumes that a third rail would be

constructed, thus increasing the rail capacity to approximately 150 trips per day.2 For both scenarios it was

assumed that rail traffic would increase by approximately 1.57 % per year (the rate of projected growth in the

WSA study) and that all increases in traffic from 2008 to 2030 would be a result of increased freight traffic. (This

is a conservative assumption since freight trains generally require the use of a second locomotive to pull their

relatively heavier loads.)

For the second scenario it was assumed that after 2030 the growth in traffic would be split between freight and

passenger trips based on the proportion of 60 freight trains for every 44 Amtrak trains. Figure 2 shows the

percent increase in rail traffic with and without a third rail as well as the reductions in PM2.5 emissions mandated

by the new USEPA rule. The percent growth rates are based on the assumption, noted above, that freight trains

will be pulled by two locomotives while passenger trains will be pulled by a single locomotive. The assumption

concerning the number of locomotives per train was based on observations of rail traffic conducted for a previous

study (Oak to Ninth Avenue Project Environmental Impact Report, October 2006).

2 Since the current capacity with two rails is estimated to be 100 trains per day in the WSA study, it was assumed that each rail can support

50 trains per day. Thus, the addition of a third rail line would increase the capacity to 150 trains per day.


4

Figure 2

Emission Reductions vs. Growth in Rail Traffic

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080

% Reduction in PM2.5 Emission Rates

% Increase in Locomotives without a 3rd Rail

% Increase in Locomotives with a 3rd Rail

Based on the growth in rail traffic and the emission reductions described above, average annual PM2.5 emissions

from trains over the 70-year exposure period used to assess cancer risk were estimated to be 230.8 pounds per

year without a third rail and 253.9 pounds per year with a third rail. Figure 3 shows the trend in average annual

PM2.5 emissions from locomotives with and without the addition of a third rail line. As shown in the figure, both

scenarios experience peak emission rates between 2010 and 2030 as the new locomotive regulations begin to take

effect. In 2030 the emissions from the scenario without a third rail begin to decrease faster than the scenario with

a third rail since growth in locomotives drops off while emission rates continue to decrease through 2044.

Beginning in 2044 emissions from the scenario without a third rail level off while emissions from the scenario

with a third rail begin to increase slightly due to the fact that the number of train trips continues to increase while

emissions reductions level off. Despite this gradual increase in emissions from 2044 out to 2080, the average

annual emissions with the third rail are not substantially higher than the scenario without the third rail since 2010

to 2030 have the strongest influence on of the 70-year average.

Average annual emissions from heavy duty trucks for the 70-year period between 2010 and 2080 were estimated

to be 192.1 pounds per year.

Modeling Methodology

When pollutants are emitted from a source, they mix with the surrounding air resulting in a certain concentration

that can be measured as the weight of the pollutant per volume of air. As wind transports the pollutants away

from the source, they continue to mix with the surrounding air, thus reducing their concentration. Health effects

of air pollutants are determined by the concentration of the pollutant that an individual may be exposed to over a

given time period.

Exposure levels of DPM at the 700 University Avenue site were estimated by conducting dispersion modeling of

major sources in the area. As discussed above, the major contributing emission sources are locomotives traveling


5

on the Union Pacific Railroad line and trucks traveling on I-80. Estimated emissions from these sources were

input to the USEPA approved dispersion model AERMOD to calculate ambient air concentrations in the project

study area.

Emissions from highway and rail traffic were modeled as line sources in AERMOD. The highway was assumed

to be 50 meters wide while the rail line was assumed to be 5 meters wide for the two existing rails and 7.5 meters

wide for the scenario with a third rail. A receptor grid was generated for a number of locations at the proposed

structure at 700 University Ave. covering all floors (ground floor to the fourth floor). Table 1 reports the

distances of the receptors from the rail line, including the heights above ground level. One additional receptor

close to the rail line (40 feet away) was included in the modeling. This receptor is not located on the project site,

but it is included to determine how the predicted concentration changes as the distance from the rail line increases

out to the project site location.

Meteorological data from the Sewage Treatment Plant in Oakland (approximately 3 miles away) was used in the

modeling. Use of five years of representative meteorological data is generally recommended to ensure worst-case

meteorological conditions; however, there are only four years of meteorological data available. These four years

of data (1998 through 2001) were supplemented with opaque cloud cover data from the Oakland International

Airport to prepare hourly surface data files for use in AERMOD. Figure 3 presents a wind rose plot that is

representative of the meteorological data used in the model.

FIGURE 3

WIND ROSE PLOT


6

Modeling Results

Table 1 presents the modeling results for all locations on the property site. The concentrations are expressed in

micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), and they represent annual average concentrations over a 70 year lifetime. In

addition, the ambient air concentration was calculated at the close-by receptor (40 feet away) for the scenario

without a third rail line. The concentration at this close-by receptor was estimated to be 0.32 µg/m3, which is over

double the maximum concentration for receptors located on the Project Site (0.15 µg/m3)

. This shows that the

ambient air concentrations decrease rapidly in the near-field, even when considering wind direction, as the

distance from the rail line increases.

TABLE 1

DPM CONCENTRATIONS AT THE PROJECT SITE

Location

Distance from tracks (feet)

Height above grade (feet)

Concentration (w/out 3

rd Rail)

Concentration (with 3

rd Rail)

First Floor, near 3rd St 120 18 0.15 0.17

Second Floor, near 3rd St 120 29 0.12 0.13

Third Floor, near 3rd St 120 39 0.08 0.09

Forth Floor, near 3rd St 120 47 0.06 0.06

Ground Floor, Halfway between 3rd and 4th St 208 19 0.12 0.13

First Floor, Halfway between 3rd and 4th St 208 29 0.10 0.10

Second Floor, Halfway between 3rd and 4th St 208 39 0.07 0.08

Third Floor, Halfway between 3rd and 4th St 208 47 0.06 0.06

Ground Floor (retail), near 4th St 297 8 0.11 0.11

First Floor, near 4th St 257 19 0.10 0.11

Second Floor, near 4th St 257 29 0.09 0.09

Third Floor, near 4th St 257 39 0.07 0.07

Forth Floor, near 4th St 257 47 0.05 0.06

NOTE: All concentrations expressed in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3)

References

City of Berkeley, 2007. West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan – Draft Existing Conditions Report – Chapter 5:

Rail Operations, October 29, 2007.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2008. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of

Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive and Marin Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters

Per Cylinder – Table 3-82 – Control Case PM2.5 Emissions for Locomotives, March 2008.


700 university avenue - city of berkeley

Documents