Berkeley City Council
January 27, 2026

North Shattuck Alliance Member Emails:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
September 24, 2024 [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
By Electronic Mail [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
ZAB Board
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA. 94704
[email protected]

CC: Council Member District 4, Mayor of Berkeley, Rep. California Senate District 9 Nancy Skinner

RE: Memorandum in Support of Reconsideration of the proposed 8-Story Building at 2109 Virginia, Adjacent to Two-Story Single-Multi-Family Homes, No. ZP-2018-0172.

Dear ZAB, Cecelia Mariscal,

We are the neighbors adjacent to the proposed 8-story building at 2109 Virginia St. We are very supportive of adding housing and many of us have restored properties, provided housing and proposed smart fill-in housing in our neighborhood.

We have several concerns regarding the 2109 Virginia Street project:

• There appears to have been outdated cleanup and measurement protocols, dating back over 30 years, were utilized to assess and manage the toxic waste generated by the historical commercial operations of Virginia Cleaners on the proposed development site.

These protocols may have been inappropriately applied to classify the site as safe for construction

• There appears to have been environmental, safety, and intrusion of privacy posed by the project to existing two-story single and multi-unit homes adjacent to the proposed large disparity of size and volume of the 8-story building that has yet to be researched and evaluated before the permit approval is granted

• There appears to have been concerns around significant duress to quality of life and safety of current residents, many of them elderly, living in the immediate city block of the proposed building, due to deficiency in parking, police, utilities, and other public needs demanded by the introduction of almost 100+ additional units which has not been researched and evaluated before the permit approval is granted

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

• There appears to have been inconsistent use of design and zoning requirements such as gradual story/height step-down rules and other design rules approved to be applied to high- density parts of Berkeley being applied to low density parts of the proposed site without proper research and evaluation before the design should be considered ready for review.

• There appears to have been no consideration of the concrete urban heat island e\ects being created by this project without removal of open space with virtually no o\sets being researched and evaluated as part of the proposed design being considered for permitting

• There appears to have been no consideration of the smart infill housing that has already occurred in Berkeley, which has added more such units that most other cities in California and specifically District 4 which has added more such units than any other Districts in Berkeley. In fact, residents along Walnut Street in District 4 have added smart infill housing (6 out of 9 residents on this petition on walnut street have added infill housing) and hence request the housing density per city block be used as a measure of equity and fairness to be researched and assessed factoring in the existing smart infill housing provisioned in district 4 and more specifically in the proposed city block to ensure balance of density of housing distribution per city block in Berkeley

• There appears to be no consideration of the advantages of smart infill into single family home areas, which would provide to lower income residents the numerous positive characteristics of single-family home areas (lower crime, lower pollution, higher income, more greenery, less concrete and better health and hence must be part of the evaluation of proposed housing plan to incorporate the societal and economic enablement assessments factoring existing smart infill housing vs. proposed 8 story complex.1

We, Berkeley residents of North Shattuck Alliance , oppose this proposed project in its form as submitted and request the ZAB and city council to enforce judgment and good common sense to guide the approval of this project. Without appropriate action from the city, we would [will?] have no recourse left but to pursue legal action against the approval of the [a] permit.

Detailed points of residents of North Shattuck Alliance Memorandum

1. SB 330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019
As long-term residents of Berkeley, tenants and homeowners, we have all first-hand experience and witnessed the significant economic and emotional pressure the housing crisis in the Bay Area and the state of California. The historic act that was passed by the state, is a testament to the courage of Sacramento to change the course of housing shortfalls in our community

2. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance in the City of Berkeley City of Berkeley has been at the forefront of encouraging innovative approaches and formats to put a dent in the housing crisis, such as supportive ADU ordinance passed by the city. ADUs

1 Single-Family Zoning in California: A Statewide Analysis, A California Zoning Atlas Report, Stephen Menendian, Shahan Shahid Nawaz & Samir Gambhir, Othering & Belonging Institute, May 22, 2024, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-california-statewide-analysis.

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

according to innumerable policy experts are a\ordable, low cost to develop, environmentally friendly, safe and smart in infilling neighborhoods with housing density. According to certain estimates, continued supportive policies for ADUs that protect homeowner and rental rights can yield close to 5000 new housing units in Berkeley – which is roughly 60% of the city’s goals set through 2030. Several residents in our community, provide ADUs, even sometimes overcoming adversities from the planning department. 6 out of 9 residents in this petition have provided in-fill housing in their properties.

However, the SB 330 act has also resulted in unintended consequences, which are untenable for our community and if faced, probably untenable for residents and even lawmakers across the city, county and state.

3. Minimal regulatory requirements for property size expansion Height step-down between the proposed 8 story apartments and one and two-story single- family and muti-unit homes in our neighborhood is essential to ensure a balanced transition between di\ering building scales. Studies show that abrupt height di\erences can cause significant overshadowing, leading to a reduction in sunlight by up to 50% for adjacent properties, negatively a\ecting residents’ quality of life2. In addition, step-down designs help maintain neighborhood privacy by limiting direct sightlines from taller buildings into single- family yards and homes. Research from urban design studies also suggests that transitioning heights can reduce wind tunnel e\ects common in densely built areas, improving pedestrian comfort by lowering wind speeds by 15-20%3. Overall, this approach fosters a visually harmonious streetscape and protects the character and property values of residential neighborhoods. Especially in a neighborhood, where there is a significant portion of elderly residents who are aging-in-place, the proposed construction puts a threat and likely force many of us to be displaced from our homes due to safety and quality of life impairment.

Ask– the city must request analysis and evaluation of sunlight and wind e\ects on quality of life and safety of residents in the immediate vicinity of proposed structure and/or reduce proposed building size to mitigate risks

4. Inadequate and incoherent design decisions
The design choices for the proposed apartment project raises significant concerns. For instance, the inclusion of a car park for 93 vehicles directly contradicts Berkeley’s push for walkable, transit-oriented housing, as exemplified by the University Avenue project. Prioritizing such extensive parking will only encourage more car ownership and tra\ic, which runs counter to Berkeley's goals for sustainable, pedestrian-friendly development. Additionally, the elimination of setbacks, justified solely by the inclusion of low-income housing, introduces serious risks for resident safety by restricting accessibility for fire and emergency personnel.

Given the likely price point of these units, it's highly likely that many residents will be families and higher-income individuals who per studies have shown to own two cars, further increasing the parking burden on nearby streets. This will lead to more cars circling for parking, especially in this locale where elderly citizens and schoolchildren from Berkeley Arts Magnet Elementary School inhabit posing significant safety concerns.

2 https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/14/5014
3 https://windtechconsult.com/20-seriously-effective-wind-mitigation-strategies-for-your-next- project/
Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Ask – the city must request analysis and evaluation of realistic demands of likely residents and family structure, their car ownership, proposed parking slots and the impact on nearby street parking availability to ensure the right balance of transit-orientated housing goals are met without endangering current residents safety in walkability and convenience to accessible street parking in the vicinity and/or reduce proposed building size to mitigate risks

5. Lack of congruence with the community
The current design proposal along Shattuck lacks the thoughtful integration needed to complement the unique, small-business-friendly nature of North Berkeley. Iconic places like the Cheeseboard Collective, which embodies Berkeley’s values of independence, employee ownership, and prioritizing community over profit, are vital to the area’s cultural and historical significance. A large-scale, developer-driven project with ground floor commercial storefronts risks disrupting this community-centric character. These new high-rises that are appearing in Berkeley, have not been able to attract local community-based businesses due to their high rent demands and therefore being leased by large national chains Adding commercial storefronts on Virginia Street—a completely residential area—raises concerns about maintaining the neighborhood’s tranquility and balance. Just as it would be illogical to place a large-scale housing development in the heart of a commercial district like 4th Street, introducing commercial activity on a quiet residential street would disrupt the established character of the area. And with the likely rent burden, such a storefront being occupied by a national chain like a pizza hut or a seven-eleven or a clothing store is incongruent. Thoughtful design choices that align with community values are essential for maintaining safety, accessibility, and the neighborhood’s integrity.

Ask – the city must require re-layout of the proposed commercial storefronts away from Virginia street and include analysis and evaluation of the rent burden on such an establishment and ensure the rent is controlled to make the storefronts a\ordable to local businesses (representative businesses such as Poulet, GoingPlaces) versus national chains

6. Urban heat islands and their environmental impact
High-density clusters of tall apartment buildings exacerbate the urban heat island (UHI) e\ect, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities and worsening climate change. These towering structures, often made of heat-absorbing materials like concrete and steel, trap heat in urban areas, making cities significantly warmer—by as much as 12°F compared to lower density regions.4 The urban heat island e\ects already existing in Berkeley can be viewed using the hot stop mapping available on Climate Central’s website5,6. This not only increases energy consumption through higher demand for air conditioning, but also leads to more greenhouse gas emissions, fueling the climate crisis. What's more, these heat islands disproportionately a\ect low-income and working-class communities, where green spaces and cooling infrastructure are often lacking. By prioritizing sustainable, human-centered urban planning -

4 https://journalism.columbia.edu/news/urban-heat-island-effect-making-new-yorkers-hotter- study-finds
5 https://journalism.columbia.edu/news/urban-heat-island-effect-making-new-yorkers-hotter- study-finds.

6 https://climatecentral.observablehq.cloud/urban-heat-hot-spots/conus-map Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

such as reducing building density, integrating renewable energy solutions, and expanding green spaces—we can fight back against climate injustice and create healthier, more equitable cities for all.

Ask – the city must require a heat island e\ect analysis of the proposed structure and its environmental impact including the overall impact on environmental burden to the community and its residents health and quality of life and/or reduce proposed building size to mitigate risks

7. Developer friendly policies at the disregard of residents While Berkeley housing code allows flexibility in how a\ordable units are distributed within a development, this approach is fundamentally unenforceable. Developers can easily prioritize profit by placing all a\ordable units on the less desirable lower floors while reserving the more valuable upper floors for high-paying buyers. There’s no e\ective mechanism in place to ensure a fair distribution of a\ordable units, and without stricter regulations, developers are likely to exploit this loophole. This leads to a situation where promises of a\ordability are undermined by market-driven interests, and the concerns of existing neighborhoods about towering eight- story buildings next to single-family homes are completely disregarded. Ultimately, this approach benefits developers, not the broader community, and leaves too much room for manipulation.

Ask – the city must amend its design requirement policy around a\ordable housing allotment to within a building to pre-set and stipulate how many unites on which floor and of what design type (ex. 1, 2, 3 bedrooms) to ensure developers cannot game the system and/or reduce proposed building size to mitigate risks

8. Opaque permitting, review and approval process
The opaque zoning process for developers compared to everyday citizens creates significant issues for the community. When developers propose projects, there is often minimal communication, with only a notice posted on the proposed site providing an email and phone number for contact. In contrast, when residents want to make even a small addition to their property, they must go through multiple rounds of notifications, obtain signatures from neighbors, and follow several bureaucratic steps. This inconsistency in the process is problematic, especially for the diverse community that lives in the neighborhood, including elderly residents aging in place, working families, single parents, and those who are not tech- savvy. The lack of clear, accessible communication in zoning matters makes the process exclusionary and ableist, effectively undermining due process. Major projects that can disrupt the neighborhood should not be sprung upon residents without proper, transparent engagement. Lastly, the City is not being transparent in terms of the housing it has provided compared to other Cites and how the new housing has been distributed throughout the City.

Ask – the city must provide density increase analysis and evaluation for proposed building factoring in how the proposed building affects the fair and equitable increase in density versus other similar neighborhoods in District 4 and other districts within the city Conclusion:

Berkeley has an average vacancy rate of 9-13%, meaning around 5,000 rental units are currently unoccupied out of 50,000 total. Despite the introduction of a vacancy tax in 2024, it is unclear whether this will effectively incentivize landlords to release these units into the market. Current incentives encourage property owners to keep units off the market, and simply building more housing—particularly under the banner of affordable housing—won't guarantee these units are Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

made available at low-income rates. Large developers, especially those who sell the finished housing to commercial property management firms, often exploit legal loopholes due to their significant financial and legal resources, making it difficult to achieve true affordability. Claims that state law and Berkeley's middle housing policy will empower small developers to build small multi- unit projects or duplexes that align with the ethos of the city are largely inaccurate. As a detailed analysis highlights, 25 developers are responsible for building 25% of all housing units in the U.S., even though there are 60,000 developers nationwide

7. This trend is driven by large developers'
access to public markets and capital, enabling them to undertake giant projects—far from what Berkeley envisions with its housing goals. Experts, including the Berkeley Rental Board Chair, remain skeptical that building large market-rate units will significantly improve affordability8. In summary, we believe un-fettered development with disregard to the community is not the answer to fixing current distorted housing policies and perverse incentives.

We, the community of North Shattuck Alliance, should not be at the receiving end of well-meaning housing policies that create unintended consequences. We sincerely request the city and state government to help us preserve our rights and our homes by addressing the requested asks at the earliest. We are willing to work closely with the city and the developer to achieve an amicable resolution that addresses our concerns.

7 https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-small-developers-are-getting

8 https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/10/23/berkeley-affordable-housing-construction Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

Item 7a, Attachment 7
ZAB 2025-09-11

August 2025

E N V I R O N M E N T A L C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A LY S I S

P U R S U A N T T O C A L I F O R N I A E N V I R O N M E N T A L

Q U A L I T Y A C T G U I D E L I N E S
S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2
2109 VIRGINIA STREET PROJECT

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 2 This page intentionally left blank
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

August 2025

E N V I R O N M E N T A L C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A LY S I S

P U R S U A N T T O C A L I F O R N I A E N V I R O N M E N T A L

Q U A L I T Y A C T G U I D E L I N E S
S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2

2109 VIRGINIA STREET PROJECT

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

Submitted to:

Cecelia Mariscal, Associate Planner
City of Berkeley
Planning and Development Department
Land Use Division
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, California 94704

Prepared by:

LSA
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, California 94801
(510) 236-6810

Project No. CBE1906.18

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4 This page intentionally left blank
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ iii

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Purpose of State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15162 Consistency Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Project Consistency with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning ............................. 2-2

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Project Site ........................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3 Relationship to City of Berkeley General Plan ................................................................ 3-17

4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 4-4

4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 4-17

4.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4-23

4.6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 4-27

4.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 4-31

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 4-38

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 4-43

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 4-53

4.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 4-65

4.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 4-68

4.13 Noise................................................................................................................................ 4-69

4.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 4-82

4.15 Public Services and Recreation ....................................................................................... 4-85

4.16 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 4-88

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 4-93

4.18 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 4-96

4.19 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 4-104

5.0 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 ANALYSIS .................................................... 5-1

5.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning) .................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162 ANALYSIS .................................................... 6-1

6.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent or Supplemental EIR) ................................ 6-1

7.0 APPLICABLE HOUSING ELEMENT EIR MITIGATION MEASURES AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURES ............................................................ 7-1 Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) ii

8.0 REPORT PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 LSA Associates, Inc. ........................................................................................................... 8-1

9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 9-1

FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Project Location and Regional Vicinity ............................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-2: Aerial Photograph of the Project Site ............................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-3: Proposed Floor Plans ........................................................................................................ 3-9 Figure 3-4: Proposed Landscape Plan ............................................................................................... 3-15

TABLES
Table 3.A: Summary of Proposed Units .............................................................................................. 3-8 Table 3.B: City of Berkeley RHNA for 2023-2031 .............................................................................. 3-17 Table 4.3.A: Project Construction Emissions .................................................................................... 4-11 Table 4.4.A: Special-Status Species Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site ........................................... 4-18 Table 4.8.A: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 4-40 Table 4.13.A: General Plan Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ...................................... 4-72 Table 4.13.B: Exterior and Interior Noise Limits, BMC Section 13.40.050 ........................................ 4-73 Table 4.13.C: Maximum Stationary Equipment Construction Noise Levels (dBA), Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.40.070 .......................................................................................... 4-74 Table 4.13.D: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................ 4-75 Table 4.16.A: Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................. 4-89 Table 7.A: Applicable Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 7-1 Table 7.B: Applicable City Conditions of Approval .............................................................................. 7-4

APPENDICES
A: AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
B: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT (PHASE I ESA)
C: PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT (PHASE II ESA) D: STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
2,3,7,8-TCDD 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachloro-dibenzodioxin
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AC Transit Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit
ACM asbestos-containing material
Air District Bay Area Air District
APN Assessor's Parcel Number
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan
bgs below ground surface
BMC Berkeley Municipal Code
BMPs best management practices
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
California Register California Register of Historical Resources CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CGS California Geological Society
CH4 methane
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) iv
City City of Berkeley
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
C-NS zone North Shattuck Commercial zone
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COA Condition of Approval
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibels
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DIR California Department of Industrial Relations
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health
DPM diesel exhaust particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMA Environmental Management Area
EMFAC2021 Emission Factor model
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESL Environmental Screening Level
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Authority
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) v
GHG greenhouse gas
gpd gallons per day
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWP Global Warming Potential
HASP Health and Safety Plan
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Housing Element 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Housing Element EIR 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report
HRE Historical Resources Evaluation
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I-580 Interstate 580
I-80 Interstate 80
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
J Number Air District Job Number
LBP lead-based paint
LCI Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation Ldn day-night average noise level
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax maximum instantaneous sound level
LOS level of service
LUST leaking underground storage tank
mgd million gallons per day
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
MWWTP Main Wastewater Treatment Plant
N2O nitrous oxide
ND/MND Negative/Mitigated Negative Declaration
NOD Notice of Determination
NOX nitrogen oxides
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) vi
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE perchloroethylene
PFCs perfluorocarbons
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Phase II ESA Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
POTW publicly owned treatment works
PRC Public Resources Code
proposed project 2109 Virginia Street Project
R-2A zone Restricted Multiple-Family Residential zone
R-4 zone Multiple-Family Residential zone
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RMS root-mean-square
ROGs reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SDSs Safety Data Sheets
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SGMP Soil and Groundwater Management Plan
SRA State Responsibility Area
Stormwater Requirements
Checklist
City of Berkeley C.3 Stormwater Requirements Checklist, Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP 3), Stormwater Controls for Development Project Checklist
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
TMD Toxics Management Division
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) vii
TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads
TPA transit priority area
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VdB vibration velocity decibels
VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
VEC vapor intrusion condition
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
vpd vehicles per day
vph vehicles per hour
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WSMP 2040 Plan Water Supply Management Program 2040 Plan ZAB Zoning Adjustments Board

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) viii
This page intentionally left blank
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

1-1
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title:
2109 Virginia Street Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Berkeley
Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, California 94704

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Cecelia Mariscal, Associate Planner
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 981-7439

4. Project Location:

The project site is located at 2109 Virginia Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 058-2178-18) in Berkeley, Alameda County, California.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Trachtenberg Architects
2421 Fourth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
Phone: (510) 649-1414

6. General Plan Designation:

Neighborhood Commercial

7. Zoning:

North Shattuck Commercial (C-NS)
Multiple-Family Residential (R-4)
Restricted Multiple-Family Residential (R-2A)

8. Project Description:

The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing approximately 4,604-square- foot, two-story commercial building on the project site, and construction of a new eight-story mixed-use residential building consisting of 112,969 square feet of residential space and 690 square feet of commercial space in the southwest corner of the ground floor. The new mixed- use residential building would consist of a total of 110 dwelling units, including 9 very low- income units and 9 middle-income units. In addition, each unit would include a private balcony, providing a total of 3,240 square feet of private outdoor space. The proposed project also Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 1-2
includes a shared 4,912-square-foot courtyard area on the second floor for use by residents containing: 1,965 square feet of landscaped area; a shared 1,030-square-foot roof deck on the eighth floor, containing 412 square feet of landscaped area; a solar array on the roof; and 109 vehicle and 97 bicycle parking spaces. The ground floor would also include the residential lobby, the leasing office, the mail room, and a storage area. Landscaping would also be provided along the project site frontages on Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street. Overall, the proposed project would provide a total of 9,182 square feet of usable open space and landscaped area. Refer to Section 3.0 for a complete description of the project.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is generally surrounded by existing development, including single- and multi- family residential and commercial uses.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) regarding proposed utility connections. b
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2-1
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

2.0 INTRODUCTION
This consistency evaluation compares the potential environmental effects of the proposed 2109 Virginia Street Project (proposed project) with the scope of analysis and identified environmental impacts in the program-level Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Housing Element),1,2 certified on January 18, 2023 (Housing Element EIR) by the City of Berkeley (City). The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the proposed project:
(a) falls within the scope of the Housing Element EIR; (b) is consistent with the findings of the Housing Element EIR; and (c) would result in any potential impacts during project construction or operation that were not previously analyzed in the Housing Element EIR or that are unique or peculiar to the project site. This evaluation has been prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15162. As discussed in Section 4.0 of this document and further explained in Sections 5.0 and 6.0, the proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element EIR and no new or more severe impacts would result. Therefore, a Notice of Determination (NOD) may be filed for the project.

2.1 PURPOSE OF STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183 AND 15162

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
This consistency analysis is prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning), which provides that projects “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” These provisions streamline the review of such projects and reduce the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an Initial Study or other analysis:

1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;

2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan with which the project is consistent;

3. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or

4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of EIR certification, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

1 Berkeley, City of. 2022. City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2022010331. August.
2 Berkeley, City of. 2023. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031. January. Amended February 17, 2023.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 2-2
In addition, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set forth in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental analysis shall be required unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR 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 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 adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; 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 that 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 (see State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) and also PRC Section 21166).

2.2 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN, GENERAL PLAN, OR ZONING On January 18, 2023, the City of Berkeley City Council approved the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update following certification of the Housing Element EIR. The Housing Element identifies the City’s housing needs and outlines the specific goals, policies, and programs to address them.

Importantly, the Housing Element quantifies how many new housing units the City needs to accommodate growth in the region as part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). As part of the Housing Element, the City identified adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation (i.e., Opportunity Sites). The Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element include vacant or underutilized sites with near- term potential for residential or mixed-use development. The project site was identified as an Opportunity Site for residential development in the Housing Element. Refer to Section 3.3 of this document for additional information regarding the relationship between the proposed project and the City’s General Plan.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

3-1
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following section describes the proposed 2109 Virginia Street Project (proposed project) that is the subject of this consistency evaluation, which has been prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning) and Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations). The proposed project involves the construction of a new mixed-use residential building on a site that was identified as an Opportunity Site for residential development in the City of Berkeley (City) 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (Housing Element EIR). The City of Berkeley is the lead agency for review of the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

3.1 PROJECT SITE
The following section describes the project location, existing conditions, surrounding land uses, and the regulatory setting.

3.1.1 Project Location
The approximately 0.51-acre project site is located at 2109 Virginia Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 058-2178-18) in Berkeley, Alameda County, California. The project site is bounded by commercial uses to the north, single-family residential uses to the east, Virginia Street to the south, and Shattuck Avenue to the west.

Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided by Interstate 80 (I-80) and Interstate 580 (I-580) via University Avenue. Local access is provided primarily via Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street. Shattuck Avenue is designated as a Major Street3 in the City’s General Plan. Transit in the project vicinity includes the extensive bus transit service provided by Alameda-Contra Costa County (AC) Transit, including Lines 7, 18, and FS, which provide service along Shattuck Avenue.4 The closest bus stop is at Virginia Street and Shattuck Avenue, approximately 70 feet south of the project site.

Figure 3-1 shows the regional and local context of the project site.

3.1.2 Existing Conditions
The southwestern portion of the project site is currently developed with an approximately 4,604- square-foot, two-story commercial building. The remainder of the project site consists of a paved surface parking lot. Vegetation on the project site is limited to street trees along Shattuck Avenue.

Figure 3-2 depicts an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses.

3 Major Streets serve the movement of automobiles, trucks, buses, pedestrians, and bicycles across the city, connecting to the regional transportation network, and to other jurisdictions. 4 Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit. 2024. Maps & Schedule. Website: https://www.actransit.org/ maps-schedules (accessed March 2025).

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 3-2
This page intentionally left blank
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

0 2000 1000
FEET
t Map (2025)
. . ia Street.aprx
W rid Stree
\2109 Virgin
SOURCE: Esri o
\2109 Virginia Street I :\C\CBE1906.18\G IS\Pro (3/14/2025) 2109 Virginia Str�et
• nd Regional Vicinity • ct Location a ProJe
FIGURE 3-1
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 3-4
This page intentionally left blank
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

LSA
75 150
FEET
SOURCE: Nearmap (2/15/2025)
l=l Project Site
l:\C\CBE1906.18\GIS\Pro\2109 Virginia Street\2109 Virginia Street.aprx (3/14/2025) FIGURE 3-2
2109 Virginia Street
Aerial Photograph of the Project Site
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 3-6
This page intentionally left blank
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

3-7
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

3.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
As shown on Figure 3-2, the project site is surrounded by existing development, including single- and multi-family residential and commercial uses. Virginia Street bounds the project site to the south, followed by the University Park Apartments complex, and Shattuck Avenue bounds the project site to the west. The Student Organic Garden is located approximately 0.04 mile southeast of the project site, across Virginia Street, and the Berkeley Arts Magnet School is located 0.04 mile west of the project site, across Shattuck Avenue.

3.1.4 Regulatory Setting
The City’s General Plan designates the project site as Neighborhood Commercial. Areas designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the city are generally characterized by pedestrian-oriented, neighborhood-serving commercial development and multi-family residential structures. These areas are typically located on two-lane streets with on-street parking and transit, and the appropriate uses for these areas include local-serving commercial, residential, office, community service, and institutional.5
The project site is located within three zoning districts: (1) 19,788 square feet of the project site are in the North Shattuck Commercial (C-NS) zone; (2) 1,970 square feet are in the Multiple-Family Residential (R-4) zone; and (3) 584 square feet are in the Restricted Multiple-Family Residential (R-2A) zone. As outlined in Section 23.204.090 of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), the purpose of the C-NS zone is to encourage the maintenance and establishment of retail and service activities that provide goods and services to serve the residents of the adjacent and outlying neighborhoods, provide locations for other activities compatible with these commercial activities, promote compatibility between such commercial areas and adjacent residential neighborhoods, and encourage an adequate commercial and residential mix along Shattuck Avenue.6 As outlined in Sections 23.202.110 and 23.202.090 of the BMC, respectively, the purpose of the R-4 zone is to make available housing for persons who desire both convenience of location and a reasonable amount of usable open space. The purpose of the R-2A zone is to make available housing for persons who desire apartment-type accommodations with a maximum of open space.7,8 The project site has also been identified as an Opportunity Site for residential development in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

3.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project would demolish the existing 4,604-square-foot, two-story commercial building on site and would construct an eight-story mixed-use residential building consisting of 112,969 square feet of residential space and 690 square feet of commercial space in the southwest corner of

5 Berkeley, City of. 2001b. General Plan, Land Use Element. December 18. 6 Berkeley, City of. n.d. Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 23.204, Commercial Districts, Section 23.204.090, C-NS North Shattuck Commercial District.
7 Berkeley, City of. n.d. Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 23.202, Residential Districts, Section 23.202.110, R-4 Multi-Family Residential District.
8 Berkeley, City of. n.d. Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 23.202, Residential Districts, Section 23.202.090, R-2A Restricted Multiple-Family Residential District.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 3-8
the ground floor. The proposed project is utilizing a 100 percent density bonus pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and would include 110 dwelling units with a mix of 9 very low-income units and 9 middle-income units. As shown in Table 3.A, overall, the proposed project would include 14 studio units, 28 one-bedroom units, and 68 two-bedroom units. In addition, each unit would include a private balcony, providing a total of 3,240 square feet of private balcony space.

Table 3.A: Summary of Proposed Units
Floor Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 2-Bedroom + Office Total Units Ground Level - - - - 0
Second Floor 2 4 6 4 16
Third Floor 2 4 6 4 16
Fourth Floor 2 4 6 4 16
Fifth Floor 2 4 6 4 16
Sixth Floor 2 4 6 4 16
Seventh Floor 2 4 6 4 16
Eighth Floor 2 4 5 3 14
Total 14 28 41 27 110
Source: Trachtenberg Architects (2025)

In addition, the proposed project would include a shared 4,912-square-foot courtyard area on the second floor for use by residents, a shared 1,030-square-foot roof deck on the eighth floor, a solar array on the roof, and vehicle and bicycle parking spaces. The ground floor would also include the residential lobby, the leasing office, the mail room, and a storage area.

Figure 3-3 depicts the proposed floor plans for the proposed project, including for the ground level, second through seventh floors, eight floor, and the proposed roof plan.

3.2.1 Access and Parking
As shown on Figure 3-3, the proposed project would be accessed via a driveway from Shattuck Avenue that would provide access to the proposed garage on the ground floor. The proposed garage would provide up to 109 vehicle parking spaces for residents. The proposed project would also provide 97 bicycle parking spaces, including 59 secure bicycle parking spaces located in a bike room in the northeast corner of the project site.

In addition, a new curb ramp and crossing is proposed for the corner of Virginia Street and Shattuck Avenue. The proposed curb ramp and crossing would be constructed pursuant to City standards.

3.2.2 Open Space and Landscaping
As discussed above, the proposed project would include a shared 4,912-square-foot courtyard area on the second floor for use by residents, containing 1,965 square feet of landscaped area, and a shared 1,030-square-foot roof deck on the eighth floor, containing 412 square feet of landscaped area. The proposed courtyard area on the second floor would feature a variety of trees and other ornamental plan species and a central sitting nook. The roof deck on the eighth floor would feature landscaped vegetation, a gathering area, and a fire pit.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
2 3
1 2
3 1
Berkeley, CA

PANORAMIC
1685

SHATTUCK/
2109 VIRGINIA

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS.
2341JOB:

SHEET:

12.11.2023 SB330 SUBMISSION

05.31.2024 ZONING APPLICATION

09.18.2024 ZONING RESUBMISSION

04.02.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION
2421 Fourth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
510.649.1414
www.sdtarch.com
DE LA PEÑA

TRACHTENBERG

ARCHITECTS

STACKHOUSE

PROPOSED
FLOOR
PLANS
-
-

PLAN AT GROUND LEVEL
3/32" = 1'-0" -
-
-
PLAN AT LEVEL 2 PODIUM
3/32" = 1'-0" -

12.11.2023 SB330 SUBMISSION

05.31.2024 ZONING APPLICATION

09.18.2024 ZONING RESUBMISSION

04.02.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION04.11.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION SOURCE: Stackhouse De La Pena Trachtenberg Architects
FEET
I:\C\CBE1906.18\G\Proposed_Floor_Plans.ai (5/14/2025)
400 20
FIGURE 3-3

Proposed Floor Plans - Ground and Level 2
2109 Virginia Street
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2 3
1 2
3 1
Berkeley, CA

PANORAMIC
1685

SHATTUCK/
2109 VIRGINIA

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS.
2341JOB:

SHEET:

12.11.2023 SB330 SUBMISSION

05.31.2024 ZONING APPLICATION

09.18.2024 ZONING RESUBMISSION

04.02.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION
2421 Fourth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
510.649.1414
www.sdtarch.com
DE LA PEÑA

TRACHTENBERG

ARCHITECTS

STACKHOUSE

PROPOSED
FLOOR
PLANS

02.05.2025 REVISED CONCEPT PLANS

02.07.2025 REVISED CONCEPT PLANS

02.14.2025 REVISED CONCEPT PLANS

02.18.2025 REVISED CONCEPT PLANS
-
-
PLAN AT LEVELS 3-7
3/32" = 1'-0" -
-
-
PLAN AT LEVEL 8
3/32" = 1'-0" -
LEVEL 08

USABLE OPEN
SPACE

SEE LANDSCAPE

12.11.2023 SB330 SUBMISSION

05.31.2024 ZONING APPLICATION

09.18.2024 ZONING RESUBMISSION

04.02.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION04.11.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION SOURCE: Stackhouse De La Pena Trachtenberg Architects
FEET
I:\C\CBE1906.18\G\Proposed_Floor_Plans.ai (5/14/2025)
400 20
FIGURE 3-3

Proposed Floor Plans - Levels 3, 7, and 8
2109 Virginia Street
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2 3
1 Berkeley, CA

PANORAMIC
1685

SHATTUCK/
2109 VIRGINIA

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS.
2341JOB:

SHEET:

12.11.2023 SB330 SUBMISSION

05.31.2024 ZONING APPLICATION

09.18.2024 ZONING RESUBMISSION

04.02.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION
2421 Fourth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
510.649.1414
www.sdtarch.com
DE LA PEÑA

TRACHTENBERG

ARCHITECTS

STACKHOUSE

PROPOSED
ROOF
PLAN
-
-

PLAN AT ROOF
3/32" = 1'-0" -

12.11.2023 SB330 SUBMISSION

05.31.2024 ZONING APPLICATION

09.18.2024 ZONING RESUBMISSION

04.02.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION04.11.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION SOURCE: Stackhouse De La Pena Trachtenberg Architects
FEET
I:\C\CBE1906.18\G\Proposed_Floor_Plans.ai (5/14/2025)
400 20
FIGURE 3-3

Proposed Floor Plans - Roof Level
2109 Virginia Street
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 3-12
This page intentionally left blank
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

3-13
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) Landscaping would also be provided along the project site frontages on Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street, as depicted on Figure 3-4. As shown on Figure 3-4, all but one of the existing street trees along Shattuck Avenue would be protected in place, and two new street trees would be planted along Virginia Street.

Overall, the proposed project would provide a total of 9,182 square feet of usable open space and landscaped area.

3.2.3 Utilities and Infrastructure
The project site is located in an urban area that is currently served by existing utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. The proposed project would connect to the existing utility infrastructure in the surrounding area, including existing water and wastewater lines in Virginia Street and Shattuck Avenue.

Under existing conditions, stormwater from the project site is collected on site and discharged to stormwater infrastructure in the surrounding area. Upon construction of the proposed project, stormwater from the project site would be directed to the proposed vegetated areas and treated by flow-through planters (biotreatment) before being discharged to the existing stormwater infrastructure in the surrounding area, similar to existing conditions.

The proposed project would also include connections to the existing electricity and natural gas infrastructure in the surrounding area.

3.2.4 Demolition and Construction
Proposed project construction would include site preparation, installation of utilities, paving, building construction, landscaping, and architectural coating activities. The proposed project would be constructed over approximately 21 months, with construction anticipated to begin in March 2026. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to require excavation to a maximum depth of 6 feet for construction of utilities, drainage facilities, and parking facilities. The entire 0.51-acre project site is anticipated to be disturbed during construction activities, and project construction would result in approximately 4,343 cubic yards of exported soil.

3.2.5 Project Approvals
The proposed project is subject to action by the City of Berkeley’s Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB).

The proposed project would require the following discretionary entitlements from the City of Berkeley, per the BMC:
• Administrative Use Permit, pursuant to BMC 23.322.070(D)(1), for exceeding the parking maximum
• Administrative Use Permit, pursuant to BMC Section 23.326.070, to demolish a non-residential building
• Use Permit, pursuant to BMC 23.326.070(A), for demolition of a non-residential main building Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 3-14
This page intentionally left blank
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

96 gal
96 gal
96 gal
96 gal
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
96gal96gal96gal

V I R G I N I A S T R E E T
4' x 8' WELLS FOR SMALLER

TREES AT VIRGINIA ST
3' X 3' SCORING

PATTERN PER

CITY STANDARDS

S H A T T U C K A V E N U E

CURB RAMP AND

CROSSING PER CITY AND
PROWAG STANDARDS, TYP.

BICYCLE RACK (2 SPACES), TYP.
-ALL BICYCLE PARKING TO BE

SPECIFIED AND INSTALLED PER
Berkeley Bicycle Plan - Appendix F -
Facility Design Toolbox
TREE WELLS EXPANDED TO 4' x 12'

WHERE UTILITIES PERMIT
-Filled w/ Flexi-Pave per City arborist
(E) STREET TREE AT SHATTUCK AVE
(5) TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED:
-ASH SPP.
(City Trees site unavailable as of 3.19.25)
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED DUE

TO CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED

CURB CUT

LOW PERIMETER

PLANTING

PROPOSED STREET TREE
AT VIRGINIA STREET (2):
-WESTERN REDBUD STF
(Cercis occidentalis)

PENDING APPROVAL OF

CITY ARBORIST

STEEL RAISED

PLANTER SHIELDS

SEATING FROM STREET
-Powdercoat color
per Arch

WOOD BENCH
BISTRO TABLE + SEATS
( HARDSCAPED = 2,315 SF )
LANDSCAPED = 2,123 SF
TOTAL UOS LANDSCAPED % = 48%
TOTAL USABLE OPEN SPACE = 4,438 SF
764 SF
86 SF
129 SF
33 SF
18 SF
42 SF1145 SF 859 SF
325 SF
345 SF
692 SF
L1-SS
NorthNorth
Berkeley, CA

PANORAMIC
1685

SHATTUCK

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS.
2109JOB:

SHEET:
2421 Fourth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
510.649.1414
www.TrachtenbergArch.com

TRACHTENBERG

ARCHITECTS

12.11.2023 SB330 SUBMISSION

04.30.2024 STRUCTURAL CONCEPT

05.31.2024 ZONING APPLICATION

09.13.2024 ZONING SUBMITTAL

04.01.2025 ZONING RESUBMITTAL
Ground Level
Streetscape and UOS
0 0 0 8 16 320
1/16" = 1'-0"
NTS
A
A
B
D
per Berkeley Bicycle Plan - Appendix F - Facility Design ToolboxB C
C
D
E
C C
D
E
C

12.11.2023 SB330 SUBMISSION

05.31.2024 ZONING APPLICATION

09.18.2024 ZONING RESUBMISSION

04.02.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION04.11.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION 96 gal
96 gal
96 gal
96 gal
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
96gal96gal96gal

V I R G I N I A S T R E E T
4' x 8' WELLS FOR SMALLER

TREES AT VIRGINIA ST
3' X 3' SCORING

PATTERN PER

CITY STANDARDS

S H A T T U C K A V E N U E

CURB RAMP AND

CROSSING PER CITY AND
PROWAG STANDARDS, TYP.
96 gal
96 gal
96 gal
96 gal
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
96 gal
96 gal
96 gal
4' x 8' WELLS FOR SMALLER
4' x 8' WELLS FOR SMALLER

TREES AT VIRGINIA ST
BICYCLE RACK (2 SPACES), TYP.
-ALL BICYCLE PARKING TO BE

SPECIFIED AND INSTALLED PER
Berkeley Bicycle Plan - Appendix F -
Facility Design Toolbox
TREE WELLS EXPANDED TO 4' x 12'

WHERE UTILITIES PERMIT
-Filled w/ Flexi-Pave per City arborist
(E) STREET TREE AT SHATTUCK AVE
(5) TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED:
-ASH SPP.
(City Trees site unavailable as of 3.19.25)
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED DUE

TO CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED

CURB CUT

LOW PERIMETER

PLANTING

PROPOSED STREET TREE
AT VIRGINIA STREET (2):
-WESTERN REDBUD STF
(Cercis occidentalis)

PENDING APPROVAL OF

CITY ARBORIST

STEEL RAISED

PLANTER SHIELDS

SEATING FROM STREET
-Powdercoat color
per Arch

WOOD BENCH
BISTRO TABLE + SEATS
( HARDSCAPED = 2,315 SF )
LANDSCAPED = 2,123 SF
TOTAL UOS LANDSCAPED % = 48%
TOTAL USABLE OPEN SPACE = 4,438 SF
764 SF
86 SF
129 SF
33 SF
18 SF
42 SF1145 SF 859 SF
325 SF
345 SF
692 SF
L1-SS
NorthNorth
Berkeley, CA

PANORAMIC
1685

SHATTUCK

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS.
2109JOB:

SHEET:
2421 Fourth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
510.649.1414
www.TrachtenbergArch.com

TRACHTENBERG

ARCHITECTS

12.11.2023 SB330 SUBMISSION

04.30.2024 STRUCTURAL CONCEPT

05.31.2024 ZONING APPLICATION

09.13.2024 ZONING SUBMITTAL

04.01.2025 ZONING RESUBMITTAL
Ground Level
Streetscape and UOS
0 0 0 8 16 320
1/16" = 1'-0"
NTS
A
A
B
D
per Berkeley Bicycle Plan - Appendix F - Facility Design ToolboxB C
C
D
E
C C
D
E
C

12.11.2023 SB330 SUBMISSION

05.31.2024 ZONING APPLICATION

09.18.2024 ZONING RESUBMISSION

04.02.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION04.11.2025 ZONING RESUBMISSION SOURCE: Trachtenberg Architects

NO SCALE
I:\C\CBE1906.18\G\Proposed_Landscape_Plan.ai (5/14/2025) FIGURE 3-4
Proposed Landscape Plan
2109 Virginia Street
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 3-16
This page intentionally left blank
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

3-17
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) • Use Permit, pursuant to BMC 23.204.020(A), for construction of a multi-family building • Use Permit, pursuant to BMC 23.204.304(A), for construction of 2,000 square feet of new floor area
In addition, the project sponsor is requesting a waiver/modification of the height limit, building stories, lot coverage, building footprint, and setback development standards under the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915(e)). This will be processed by the City in conjunction with the permits described above.

Proposed project development, if approved, would also be subject to the City of Berkeley’s standard Conditions of Approval (COA), pursuant to BMC 23B.32.040.D and consistent with the findings made by ZAB for approval of the project and issuance of the requested Administrative Use Permit.

Applicable COAs related to the protection of the environment are identified in Table 7.B in Section

7.0, Applicable Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Compliance Measures, and are summarized in the appropriate topical sections. Each COA is titled pursuant to the subject area it addresses.

While the City is the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed project, other agencies also have discretionary authority related to the project or serve as a responsible and/or trustee agency in connection to the proposed project. The proposed project may also require approval from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) regarding proposed utility connections.

3.3 RELATIONSHIP TO CITY OF BERKELEY GENERAL PLAN
On January 18, 2023, the City of Berkeley City Council approved the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Housing Element). The Housing Element identifies the City’s housing needs and outlines the specific goals, policies, and programs to address them. Importantly, the Housing Element quantifies how many new housing units the City needs to accommodate growth in the region as part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). As shown in Table 3.B below, the City of Berkeley must construct 8,934 new housing units by 2031 to meet its housing allocation.

The proposed project represents approximately 1.2 percent of the total housing units.

Table 3.B: City of Berkeley RHNA for 2023-2031
Extremely/Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income Total
RHNA 2,446 1,408 1,416 3,664 8,934
Percent Total (%) 27.4 15.8 15.8 41.0 100.0
Source: 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (City of Berkeley 2023).

RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Assessment

As part of the Housing Element, the City identified adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation (i.e., Opportunity Sites). The Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element include vacant or underutilized sites with near- term potential for residential or mixed-use development.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 3-18
The Housing Element was determined by the City Council to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law on January 18, 2023. On February 28, 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) also found the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. An EIR was prepared for the Housing Element Update in August 2022 (SCH No. 2022010331), which was certified by the City Council on January 18, 2023 (Resolution No. 70,669-N.S).

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-1
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

4.1 AESTHETICS

Significant
Impact
Identified in
Housing
Element EIR
Project
Contributes to
Identified
Housing Element
EIR Impact
New or More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

4.1.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.1 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (Housing Element EIR) analyzed potential impacts related to aesthetics. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant, and no mitigation was prescribed. Although implementation of the Housing Element would alter the development pattern of the city such that scenic views of and from public viewpoints could be adversely affected, development pursuant to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Housing Element) would occur on individual sites and would be limited.

In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that most of the sites in the Housing Element that were identified for future development are located within a transit priority area (TPA), and aesthetic impacts in those areas cannot be considered to be significant impacts, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21099). There are also no designated or eligible Scenic Highways in the city or with significant views of the city, and the Housing Element EIR determined that with compliance with existing regulations, including Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Sections

23.304.100 and 23.304.130, future development under the Housing Element would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality or substantially add to existing light and glare in the city.

4.1.2 Project Impacts
PRC Section 21099(d) provides that, among other items, “aesthetics… impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-2
shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Accordingly, aesthetics is no longer to be considered in determining if a project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects for projects that meet all of the following three criteria:

1. The project is residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment center.

2. The project is on an infill site.9

3. The project is in a transit priority area.10
The proposed project would result in the development of a new eight-story, mixed-use residential building containing a total of 110 dwelling units and approximately 690 square feet of commercial space on an infill site. Transit in the project vicinity includes the extensive bus transit service provided by Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit (AC Transit). The project site is located within a transit priority area because it is within 0.5 mile of several intersecting major bus routes, including Lines 7, 18, and FS. Line 7 provides bus service from the El Cerrito del Norte Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Transit Center to Downtown Berkeley, Line 18 provides bus service from University Village in Albany to the Lake Merritt BART Transit Center, and Line FS provides bus service from Solano Avenue and Colusa Street to the Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco.11 These lines provide service at a frequency of less than 15 minutes during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. In addition, as shown on the Household VMT Per Capita and Home‐Work VMT Per Worker maps in the City of Berkeley Transportation VMT Criteria and Thresholds,12 the project site is located within a TPA.

Because the proposed project meets each of the above three criteria, aesthetic impacts are not required to be considered in determining the significance of project impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project elements that relate to changes to aesthetic conditions at the site and vicinity, such as proposed building heights, architecture, effects of new light and glare, etc., will be considered as part of the planning approval process, including through design review. In addition, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City of Berkeley (City) standard Condition of Approval (COA) for Exterior Lighting, below, which requires all exterior lighting to be energy efficient where feasible, and shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to prevent excessive glare beyond the subject property.

COA: Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to prevent excessive glare beyond the subject property.

9 PRC Section 21099(a) defines an “infill site” as a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right‐of‐way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. 10 PRC Section 21099(a) defines a “transit priority area” as an area within 0.5 mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. A “major transit stop” is defined in Section 21064.3 of the California Public Resources Code as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency or service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
11 Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit (AC Transit). 2024. Maps & Schedules. Website:
https://www.actransit.org/maps-schedules (accessed March 2025). 12 Berkeley, City of. 2020. City of Berkeley Transportation VMT Criteria and Thresholds. June 29.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-3
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) The proposed project would have no impact, either individually or cumulatively, on aesthetics.

4.1.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, and there would be no impact peculiar to the proposed project or the project site related to aesthetics. Impacts related to aesthetics would remain less than significant as identified in the Housing Element EIR. No further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Sections 15183 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-4

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

Significant
Impact
Identified in
Housing
Element EIR
Project
Contributes to
Identified
Housing Element
EIR Impact
New or More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

4.2.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 1.6 of the Housing Element EIR discussed issues determined to have a less than significant impact due to the unique conditions of the city and were therefore not analyzed in further detail in the Housing Element EIR, including agricultural and forestry resources. The Housing Element EIR states that the city does not have agricultural or forest lands, and the City’s General Plan and Zoning Map do not contain agricultural or forestry land designations. In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that the city is classified as urban and built-up land under the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) and there is no Williamson Act contract land within the city.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-5
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

4.2.2 Project Impacts
The project site and vicinity are located within an urban area of the city that does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of Statewide importance;13 forest land; or land under a Williamson Act contract.14 In addition, the area is not zoned for any agricultural uses. The proposed project would have no impact, either individually or cumulatively, on agricultural or forest resources.

4.2.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, and there would be no impact peculiar to the proposed project or the project site related to agricultural or forestry resources. Impacts on agricultural and forestry resources would remain less than significant as identified in the Housing Element EIR. No further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Sections 15183 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

13 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022. California Important Farmland Finder (map).

Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff (accessed March 2025). 14 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/ (accessed March 2025).

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-6

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Significant
Impact
Identified in
Housing
Element EIR
Project
Contributes to
Identified
Housing Element
EIR Impact
New or More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

4.3.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.2 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to air quality. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to air quality would either be less than significant or less than significant with incorporation of prescribed mitigation measures. The Housing Element EIR determined that implementation of the Housing Element would not conflict with the control measures within the 2017 Clean Air Plan, and the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increase from implementation of the Housing Element would be less than the projected population increase. In addition, development facilitated by the Housing Element would not create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, implementation of the Housing Element would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans or result in objectionable odors, and no mitigation was prescribed.

The Housing Element EIR also determined that construction facilitated by the Housing Element would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, which would affect local air quality. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires compliance with the current Bay Area Air District (Air District) basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10, and adherence to the City’s COAs would reduce construction emissions such that impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that construction activities for individual projects facilitated by the Housing Element lasting longer than 2 months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Additionally, development facilitated by the Housing Element would site new sensitive land uses near Interstate 580/Interstate 80 (I-580/I-80), which may expose them to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires construction Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-7
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) health risk assessments for projects where construction activities would occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, would last longer than 2 months and would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment. Mitigation Measure AQ-3, which details design features for residential development located within 1,000 feet of I-580/I-80 or on a lot that fronts on a section of roadway with 10,000 vehicles per day or more, would reduce this impact to less than significant.

4.3.2 Project Impacts
The information and analysis in this section is based on the Air Quality Analysis Technical Memorandum15 prepared for the proposed project. This report is provided as Appendix A. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The applicable air quality plan is the Air District’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, which defines control strategies to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of air pollutants, safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest heath risk (with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily affected by air pollution), and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to protect the climate. Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project (1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan, (2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan, and (3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.

Clean Air Plan Goals. The primary goals of the Air District’s 2017 Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area, and reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.

The Air District has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational impacts at a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an adverse impact on the region’s attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards thresholds were established to help protect public health. As discussed below, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed Air District thresholds of significance after the implementation of mitigation.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan goals.

Clean Air Plan Control Measures. The control strategies of the 2017 Clean Air Plan include measures in the following categories: Stationary Source Measures, Transportation Measures, Energy Measures, Building Measures, Agriculture Measures, Natural and Working Lands Measures, Waste Management Measures, Water Measures, and Super-GHG Pollutants Measures. The proposed project’s compliance with each of these control measures is discussed below:
• Stationary Source Control Measures: The Stationary Source Control Measures, which are designed to reduce emissions from stationary sources such as metal melting facilities, cement kilns, refineries, and glass furnaces, are incorporated into rules adopted by the Air District and then enforced by the Air District Permit and Inspection programs. Since the proposed project

15 LSA Associates, Inc. 2025. Air Quality Analysis Technical Memorandum for the 2109 Virginia Street Project.

August 15.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-8
would not include any of these stationary sources, the Stationary Source Control Measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the proposed project. • Transportation Control Measures: The Air District identifies Transportation Control Measures as part of the 2017 Clean Air Plan to decrease emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and GHGs by reducing demand for motor vehicle travel, promoting efficient vehicles and transit service, decarbonizing transportation fuels, and electrifying motor vehicles and equipment. The proposed project would construct a mixed-use residential building consisting of 110 dwelling units and 690 square feet of commercial space. The proposed project would locate residential uses within walking or bicycling distance to surrounding commercial shopping areas, thereby reducing the demand for travel by single-occupancy vehicles. The proposed project would also provide paved pedestrian pathways that would circle around the perimeter of the proposed development and that would provide access to Virginia Street and Shattuck Avenue, which would increase connectivity with the surrounding areas. In addition, existing bus stations and other high-quality transit services are within 0.5 mile of the project site along Shattuck Avenue (refer to Section 4.1.2). Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified Transportation Control Measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.Energy Control Measures: The 2017 Clean Air Plan also includes Energy Control Measures, which are designed to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by decreasing the amount of electricity consumed in the Bay Area and decreasing the carbon intensity of the electricity used by switching to less GHG- intensive fuel sources for electricity generation. Since these measures apply to electrical utility providers and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Energy Control Measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the proposed project. • Building Control Measures: The Air District has authority to regulate emissions from certain sources in buildings such as boilers and water heaters but has limited authority to regulate buildings themselves. Therefore, the strategies in the Building Control Measures for this sector focus on working with local governments that do have authority over local building codes so as to facilitate adoption of best GHG control practices and policies. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regarding energy conservation and green building standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the Building Control Measures. • Agriculture Control Measures: The Agriculture Control Measures are designed to primarily reduce emissions of methane. Since the project does not include any agricultural activities, the Agriculture Control Measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan do not apply to the proposed project. • Natural and Working Lands Control Measures: The Natural and Working Lands Control Measures focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands and encouraging local governments to adopt ordinances that promote urban tree plantings. Since the proposed project does not include the disturbance of any rangelands or wetlands, the Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-9
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) Natural and Working Lands Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan do not apply to the proposed project.
• Waste Management Control Measures: The Waste Management Control Measures focus on reducing or capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic materials away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. The proposed project would comply with local requirements for waste management (e.g., recycling and composting services). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Waste Management Control Measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. • Water Control Measures: The Water Control Measures focus on reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from publicly owned treatment works (POTW), and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems.

Since these measures apply to POTWs and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Water Control Measures are not applicable to the proposed project. • Super GHG Control Measures: The Super-GHG Control Measures are designed to facilitate the adoption of best GHG control practices and policies through the Air District and local government agencies. Since these measures do not apply to individual projects, the Super-GHG Control Measures do not apply to the proposed project.

Clean Air Plan Implementation. As discussed above, the proposed project would generally implement the applicable measures outlined in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, including Transportation Control Measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
The Air District is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and federal ozone standards and federal particulate matter (PM) ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The Air District’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the Air District considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project-level construction- and operation-related air quality impacts.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-10
Construction Emissions. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by demolition, grading, building, paving, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), reactive organic gases (ROGs), directly emitted particulate matter (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns and 10 microns in size [PM2.5 and PM10, respectively]), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) (e.g., diesel exhaust particulate matter [DPM]).

Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building, paving, and architectural coating (painting). Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during demolition, grading, and site preparation phases due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site.

Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would disperse over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The Air District has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10). With the implementation of these basic best management practices (BMPs), fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts. In addition, the City of Berkeley has established COA: Public Works – Implement Air District- Recommended Measures During Construction, which requires the implementation of the Air District’s basic BMPs.

In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, NOX, ROGs, and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic. These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to calculate emissions from on-site construction equipment and emissions from worker and vehicle trips to the site. Construction- related emissions are presented in Table 4.3.A, below.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-11
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) Table 4.3.A: Project Construction Emissions
Project Construction
Average Daily Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
ROGs NOX Exhaust PM10 Fugitive
Dust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive Dust
PM2.5
2026 0.3 6.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2
2027 4.8 7.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.1
Maximum Average Daily Emissions 4.8 7.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 Air District Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 BMP 54.0 BMP
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2025).

Air District = Bay Area Air District
BMP = best management practice
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in size
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in size
ROGs = reactive organic gases

As shown in Table 4.3.A, construction emissions associated with the project would not exceed the Air District’s thresholds for ROGs, NOX, CO, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 emissions. In addition to the Air District regulations, the City requires the implementation of COA: Public Works – Implement Air District-Recommended Measures During Construction, which are consistent with the Air District’s requirements for fugitive dust impacts. The City also requires the implementation of COA: Air Quality – Diesel Particulate Matter Controls During Construction to require cleaner construction equipment for projects with construction lasting more than 2 months. With implementation of these COAs, which are outlined below, construction impacts would be less than significant.

COA: Public Works – Implement Air District-Recommended Measures During Construction.

For all proposed projects, Air District recommends implementing all the Basic Best Management Practices, listed below to meet the best management practices threshold for fugitive dust:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-12
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly-visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Berkeley regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

COA: Air Quality – Diesel Particulate Matter Controls During Construction. All off-road construction equipment used for projects with construction lasting more than 2 months shall comply with one of the following measures:
a. The project applicant shall prepare a health risk assessment that demonstrates the project’s on-site emissions of diesel particulate matter during construction will not exceed health risk screening criteria after a screening-level health risk assessment is conducted in accordance with current guidance from Air District and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The health risk assessment shall be submitted to the Land Use Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits; or
b. All construction equipment shall be equipped with Tier 2 or higher engines and the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type (Tier 4 engines automatically meet this requirement) as certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

In addition, a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (Emissions Plan) shall be prepared that includes the following:
• An equipment inventory summarizing the type of off-road equipment required for each phase of construction, including the equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. For all VDECS, the equipment inventory shall also include the technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, CARB verification number level, and installation date.
• A Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully with the Emissions Plan and acknowledges that a significant violation of the Emissions Plan shall constitute a material breach of contract. The Emissions Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the above City-required COAs, which are consistent with Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1, requiring compliance with the Air District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10. The Air District’s Basic BMPs would be implemented during the construction period through compliance with the City’s COA.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-13
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) Also refer to Section 4.3.2.c, below, which discusses potential health risk impacts to sensitive receptors during project construction. In compliance with COA: Air Quality – Diesel Particulate Matter Controls During Construction, the proposed project would use at least Tier 2 equipment in conjunction with the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type during project construction and will prepare a Construction Emission Minimization Plan. The City has determined that implementation of these measures reduce emissions to such an extent that sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project construction. As such, construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment) related to the proposed project. Mobile source emissions include ROG and NOX emissions that contribute to the formation of ozone.

Additionally, PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Energy source emissions would generally result from activities in buildings for which natural gas is used. Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coatings, consumer products, and the use of landscape maintenance equipment.

As discussed above, the Air District has developed screening criteria to provide lead agencies with a conservative indication of whether a proposed project would result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of the proposed project’s emissions.

These screening levels are generally representative without any form of mitigation measures taken into consideration. In addition, the screening criteria do not account for project design features, attributes, or local development requirements that could also result in lower emissions.

For operational criteria pollutants, the Air District screening size for Apartment Housing land uses is 638 units and for Strip Mall land uses is 204,000 square feet. The proposed project would construct a mixed-use residential building consisting of 110 dwelling units and 690 square feet of commercial space. Based on the Air District’s screening criteria, operational activities associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to exceed established thresholds; therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State AAQS. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Analysis. Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Bay Area with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the State or federal CO standards have been recorded at Bay Area monitoring stations since 1991. The Air District’s CEQA Guidelines include recommended methodologies for quantifying concentrations of localized CO levels for proposed transportation projects. A screening level analysis using guidance from the Air District CEQA Guidelines was performed to determine the impacts of the proposed project. The screening methodology provides a conservative indication for Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-14
whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions.

According to the Air District’s CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans.
• Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
• The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below-grade roadway).

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the policies or programs of the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Based on the size of the project, the proposed project did not meet the criteria for an evaluation of study area intersection or roadway segment level of service (LOS). The proposed project includes the construction of a parking garage; therefore, the applicable screening threshold would be 24,000 vehicles per hour (vph). The proposed project would generate 561 average daily trips, including 37 AM peak-hour trips and 36 PM peak-hour trips.

Therefore, based on the average daily trips generated by the proposed project, it is anticipated that the project’s contribution to peak-hour traffic volumes at intersections in the vicinity of the project site and within the parking garage would be well below 24,000 vph. As such, the CO concentrations are not expected to significantly increase as a result of the project, and the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or federal standards. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Sensitive receptors are defined as people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The closest sensitive receptor to the project site includes a single-family home located immediately east of the project site at approximately 40 feet measured from the project eastern boundary to the residential building façade.

Construction Emissions. Construction activities can expose sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). Construction contractors would be required to implement COA: Public Works – Implement Air District-Recommended Measures During Construction.

Additionally, given the proximity of the nearby receptors, the City would also require implementation of COA: Air Quality – Diesel Particulate Matter Controls During Construction to Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-15
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) ensure the proposed project would not result in a significant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors.

As provided above, the Housing Element EIR prescribed Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires construction health risk assessments for projects where construction activities would occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, would last longer than 2 months, and would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment. The project sponsor has not prepared a health risk assessment; however, consistent with COA: Air Quality – Diesel Particulate Matter Controls During Construction, the proposed project would use at least Tier 2 equipment in conjunction with the most effective VDECS available for the engine type during project construction and will prepare a Construction Emission Minimization Plan. The City has determined that implementation of these measures reduce emissions to such an extent that sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project construction. Therefore, with implementation of COA: Air Quality – Diesel Particulate Matter Controls During Construction, project construction health risk impacts would be less than significant, and Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would not be applicable to the proposed project.

Operational Emissions. Land uses that have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to TACs include distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and large gas dispensing facilities. In addition, various commercial and industrial processes have the potential to emit TACs associated with the use of diesel-fueled trucks or equipment. The proposed project would construct a mixed-use residential building consisting of 110 dwelling units and 690 square feet of commercial space. The proposed project does not include any uses that would generate a substantial amount of DPM emissions from off-road equipment use or truck idling that would result in the generation of a substantial amount of TACs. In addition, as identified above, operational activities associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to exceed the Air District’s established thresholds; thus, operation of the proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on sensitive receptors. As such, once operational, the proposed project would not be a source of substantial emissions. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs.

In addition, because the project site is within 1,000 feet of a roadway with more than 10,000 vehicles per day (vpd) (i.e., Shattuck Avenue)16, the proposed project would be required to implement Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-3, which details design features for residential development located within 1,000 feet of I-580/I-80 or on a lot that fronts on a section of roadway with 10,000 vpd or more. Project design features would include installing a HVAC system with high efficiency particulate filters (HEPA), weatherproofed windows, and ongoing maintenance of the HVAC and infiltration systems. With implementation of Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-3, impacts associated with exposing sensitive land uses to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.

16 City of Berkeley. 2001. Berkeley General Plan, Transportation Element. December 18.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-16
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site.

Odor-generating land uses typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed project would construct a mixed-use residential building consisting of 110 dwelling units and 690 square feet of commercial space. Therefore, the proposed land uses would not be considered potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people. Additionally, the proposed uses that would be developed within the project site are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. The proposed project would also include trash enclosures, which would reduce any potential for odors from project-related waste. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

4.3.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, and there would be no impact peculiar to the proposed project or the project site related to air quality. Impacts related to air quality would remain less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation, as identified in the Housing Element EIR. No further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Sections 15183 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-17
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Significant
Impact
Identified in
Housing
Element EIR
Project
Contributes to
Identified
Housing Element
EIR Impact
New or More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

4.4.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.3 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to biological resources.

The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts on biological resources would either be less than significant or no impact would occur. No mitigation measures were prescribed because future development would be subject to the policies contained in the City’s General Plan, including Policies EM-1, EM-3, and EM-5, which encourage the City to adopt and implement environmental management programs, promote the City’s environmental management and sustainability policies and programs and encourage other cities in the region to establish similar or better policies and programs, and promote and encourage compliance with “green” building standards, as well as the City’s COA: Nesting Birds, which prohibits vegetation removal during the general avian nesting season (February 1 to August 31) and requires that preconstruction nesting bird surveys be performed.

In addition, future development projects would also be subject to State and federal laws, regulations, and management policies regarding biological resources (e.g., federal Endangered Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-18
Species Act [FESA]) and would be reviewed to determine whether their impacts fall within the scope of the Housing Element EIR, or if additional site-specific environmental review will be required.

Therefore, the Housing Element EIR determined that potential impacts on special-status species would be less than significant. In addition, the Housing Element EIR indicated that although some riparian areas may occur within or adjacent to the city, the specific development areas identified in the Housing Element are in already developed urban areas and no impacts to riparian areas are anticipated. The Housing Element EIR determined that the majority of the housing opportunity sites are located on infill sites that are already developed with structures and/or parking and are not proximate to wetlands or waterways. For development that would occur in these areas, Berkeley’s creek protection ordinance (BMC Chapter 17.08) and permitting pursuant to Section 404/401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code, and the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act would be required. Therefore, the Housing Element EIR determined that compliance with these existing regulations would ensure impacts to wetlands would be less than significant.

In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that impacts related to migratory corridors and inconsistency with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations, including General Plan Policies EM-28, EM-29, and EM-30, BMC Chapter 17.08, the City’s bird safety requirements, and the City’s Tree Ordinance (BMC No. 6,509-N-S).

4.4.2 Project Impacts
The 0.51-acre site is located in a highly urbanized area of Berkeley and situated among existing commercial and residential uses. Due to previous disturbance of the project site and the surrounding urban area, use of the project site by wildlife is expected to be limited. Vegetation on the project site is limited to street trees along Shattuck Avenue.

To establish existing conditions related to biological resources, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)17 was reviewed for lists of special-status species that have occurred or could occur within 0.5 mile of the project site.

Special-Status Plants and Wildlife. A total of six special-status wildlife species and two special-status plant species have CNDDB occurrences within 0.5 mile of the project site, as provided in Table 4.4.A.

Table 4.4.A: Special-Status Species Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site Species Taxonomic Group Status1
Animals
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) Mammal -/CSC
Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) Mammal None2
Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis) Mammal -/CSC Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) Insect -/CE
Bridges’ coast range shoulderband (Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi) Mollusk None2

17 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. California Natural Diversity Database, commercial version dated April 30, 2022. Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-19
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) Table 4.4.A: Special-Status Species Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site Species Taxonomic Group Status1
Pacific walker (Pomotiopsis californica) Mollusk None2
Plants
Dark eyed gilia (Gilia millefoliata) Dicot 1B.2
Marin knotweed (Polygonum marinense) Dicot 3.1
Source: Compiled by LSA (2025).
1 Federal/State
CE = Candidate Endangered
CSC = California Species of Special Concern
1B.2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly threatened in California

3.1 = Plants moderately rare, threatened, or endangered in California 2 This species is not listed on the Federal or State Endangered/Threatened Species list but is included on the State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife CNDDB Special Animals List (April 2024).

CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database

Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities. The CNDDB contains no occurrences for sensitive natural communities within 0.5 mile of the project site. In addition, there are no sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat on the project site. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed project would result in redevelopment of the project site with commercial and residential uses. The project site has negligible value as habitat for any species listed as endangered or threatened by the FESA or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The site is entirely paved and developed with the on site building; therefore, none of the special-status plant species are expected to occur on the site. Similarly, no suitable habitat (e.g., streams, marshes, or chaparral) for most of the special-status wildlife in the area occurs on the site.

The existing building on the project site is not expected to provide habitat or roosting sites for bats due to the highly urbanized surrounding area and because it is not abandoned or vacant, which is usually where bats roost. Therefore, the demolition of the existing structure would not result in impacts on bat species.

The proposed project would develop the project site with a new eight-story building, which could increase the potential for bird strikes. However, the proposed project would be required to adhere to BMC Section 23.304.150, which details the City’s bird safe building requirements. As stated in BMC Section 23.304.150, transparent or reflective material (e.g., windows) associated with future development of the project site would be required to either have an American Bird Conservancy Threat Factor Rating of 30 or less or undergo pattern glazing treatment. In addition, all panes with exterior screens, shutters, or shading devices would be required to be installed permanently over windows, structures, and building features such that there is no gap larger than 9 inches in any single dimension.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-20
In addition, all native birds and their nests, regardless of their regulatory status, are protected by the California Fish and Game Code. If conducted during the breeding season (February through August), vegetation removal and other demolition or construction activities could directly impact nesting birds by removing trees and/or vegetation or structures that support active nests. Implementation of COA: Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Birds would ensure that potential impacts to special-status species would be less than significant.

COA: Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Birds. Initial site disturbance activities, including vegetation and concrete removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 to August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation and concrete removal. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed inside the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/ nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and January 31.

With adherence to all applicable City requirements, including BMC Section 23.304.150 and COA:

Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Birds, potential impacts associated with special-status species would not occur.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The proposed project would not adversely affect any sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat, which is absent from the project site. There would be no impact to riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-21
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory,18 no protected wetlands are present on the project site. The proposed project would have no impact related to State or federally protected wetlands.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The project site is not located within a migratory wildlife movement corridor. Most of the species that likely use the site are “generalists” that are adept at moving through urban landscapes.

However, trees, shrubs, other vegetation, and structures have the potential to support nests of many common native bird species. All native birds and their nests, regardless of their regulatory status, are protected by the California Fish and Game Code. If conducted during the breeding season (February through August), vegetation removal and other demolition or construction activities could directly impact nesting birds by removing trees and/or vegetation, or structures that support active nests. As discussed above under Section 4.4.a, implementation of COA: Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Birds would ensure that there would be no impacts to nesting birds. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
BMC Section 12.44.02019 protects certain trees, including street trees, within the city. As discussed above, street trees are present along Shattuck Avenue. The trees are considered protected trees under BMC Section 12.44.020. As shown on Figure 3-4, all but one of the existing street trees along Shattuck Avenue would be protected in place and two new trees would be planted along Virginia Street.

Construction of the proposed project would comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Guidelines, including the establishment of a tree protection zone, tree protection fencing, adding irrigation and

18 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory. Website: https://fws primary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed March 2025). 19 BMC Section 12.44.020: It unlawful for any person to cut, trim, remove, mutilate, injure or in any way impair the growth of any tree, shrub or plant being or growing in or on any public property within the City, or to cause or permit the same to be done. Provided, however, that in the event that any person desires permission to cut, trim, remove or in any way impair the natural growth of any such tree, shrub or plant, application shall first be made to the Director of Recreation and Parks for a permit therefor. Upon receipt of such application, the Director of Recreation and Parks may cause an inspection to be made and may thereafter issue or refuse to issue a permit for such work. Provided, further, that whenever it is deemed necessary by the Director of Recreation and Parks, he may require the work specified in said application, or any part thereof, to be done under his supervision, and the cost of such supervision shall be borne by the project sponsor if so determined by the Director of Recreation and Parks.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-22
mulch, and specifications for if any root pruning occurs. Further, the proposed project would replace the one removed street tree in accordance with the City’s Tree Planting Location Standards. 20 The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no potential impacts to protected trees would occur. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project area is not subject to any adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan, and no impact would occur.

4.4.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, and there would be no impact peculiar to the proposed project or the project site related to biological resources. Impacts on biological resources would remain less than significant as identified in the Housing Element EIR. No further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Sections 15183 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

20 Berkeley, City of. 2022b. Tree Planting Location Standards. February.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-23
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Significant
Impact
Identified in
Housing
Element EIR
Project
Contributes to
Identified
Housing Element
EIR Impact
New or More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

4.5.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.4 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to cultural resources. The Housing Element EIR determined that potential impacts on archeological resources, including human remains, would be less than significant; however, impacts to historical resources were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.

The Housing Element EIR also identified a cumulatively considerable impact related to historical resources.

The Housing Element EIR determined that although development facilitated by the Housing Element could adversely affect identified and previously unidentified archeological resources, including human remains, adherence to the City’s COA: Archeological Resources and COA: Human Remains would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

The Housing Element EIR also determined that future development facilitated by the Housing Element could result in the material impairment of a historical resource if demolition of a historical structure occurs as part of that future development. The City has adopted regulations that would apply to future development facilitated by the Housing Element, including the City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission ordinance, which provides procedures for the local designation of historical resources. The ordinance also includes a provision for a permit review, which allows the Landmarks Preservation Commission to review and approve any construction, alteration, or demolition of a designated landmark, buildings in designated historic districts, and structures of merit. In addition, the Housing Element EIR prescribed Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires the City to conduct a citywide historic context statement and a cultural resource survey to identify historic resources, and Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which requires a historical resources assessment be prepared for projects that are subject to discretionary review when a historical-age building or structure that has not been previously evaluated is present. However, even with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures, the Housing Element EIR determined that existing and eligible historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development because specific actions intended for the reduction of impacts to historical resources could be deemed infeasible.

Therefore, the Housing Element EIR determined that impacts to historical resources would be significant and unavoidable.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-24

4.5.2 Project Impacts
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
The records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) database indicates there is one potentially historic resource (i.e., the existing commercial building) located on the project site and one historic resource (i.e., a historic building located at 1540 Shattuck Avenue) within 0.25 mile of the project site. In addition, the NWIC record search results identified 10 cultural reports that have been previously conducted within the 0.25-mile study area and 18 previously conducted cultural reports have included a portion of the project site within their search radius.

Pursuant to Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure CUL-2, a Historical Resources Evaluation (HRE) was prepared 21 to evaluate the existing structure’s eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and whether the existing structure meets the criteria for designation as a City of Berkeley Landmark and/or Structure of Merit. This report was peer reviewed by LSA.

The HRE found that the existing structure, which was initially built in 1906, was remodeled several times, and various parts of the building are incongruous in form. As such, the building represents various architectural styles. In addition, the structure suffered a number of fires during its history, the last of which (in 1981) destroyed almost the entire building. Only the portion of the building fronting Shattuck Avenue was repaired/reconstructed, and it was given an entirely different architectural treatment than it previously had. The HRE did not find a significant connection to historically significant events or people. Therefore, the HRE concluded that the existing building does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register, or as a candidate Berkeley Landmark, or as a Structure of Merit due to a general lack of historical significance relating to events or people, which is exacerbated by its substantial loss of integrity and subsequent inability to represent any of its history prior to 1981.

Because no historical resources as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)(A)(B) are present at the project site, implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The search of the NWIC database indicates there are no previously recorded archeological cultural resources at the project site. Therefore, no archeological resources are currently known to exist on the project site. However, the proposed project would include excavation to a depth of approximately 6 feet below the ground surface. Ground-disturbing activities could have a substantial adverse change on unrecorded buried archeological deposits that qualify as historical resources, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and could materially impair pre-

21 Left Coast Architectural History. 2024. Historical Resources Evaluation. April 23.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-25
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) contact archeological deposits. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s COA: Archeological Resources, which addresses this potential impact.

COA: Archeological Resources. (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), “provisions for historical or unique archeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” should be instituted. Therefore:

A. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant and/or lead agency shall consult with a qualified archeologist, historian or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find.

B. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project proponent and/or lead agency and the qualified professional would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City of Berkeley. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by the qualified professional according to current professional standards.

C. In considering any suggested measure proposed by the qualified professional, the project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is necessary or feasible in light of factors such as the uniqueness of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.

D. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation measures for cultural resources is carried out.

E. If significant materials are recovered, the qualified professional shall prepare a report on the findings for submittal to the Northwest Information Center.

Implementation of the appropriate procedures required by COA: Archeological Resources for the treatment of archeological resources and deposits would ensure that these resources are protected if encountered at the project site during construction by including stop work procedures in the event of a find as well as handling procedures. With this COA in place, the project would have no impact on archeological resources.
c) Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No human remains have been identified at the project site; however, the proposed project would require excavation to a depth of approximately 5 feet below the ground surface. Ground-disturbing activities could disturb, and in turn have a substantial adverse change on, unrecorded human remains. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s COA: Human Remains, which addresses this potential impact.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-26
COA: Human Remains. (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during ground- disturbing activities, all work shall immediately halt, and the Alameda County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, and following the procedures and protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all excavation and site preparation activities shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find until appropriate arrangements are made. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determination of significance and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously.

Implementation of the appropriate procedures required under State law and by COA: Human Remains for the treatment of Native American remains would ensure that descendant communities have significant input in the treatment and final disposition of human remains, if encountered at the project site during construction. With these regulations and conditions of approval in place, the project would have no impact on human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

4.5.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, and there would be no impact peculiar to the proposed project or the project site related to cultural resources, including historical resources. Impacts on archeological resources would remain less than significant, and impacts on historical resources would remain significant and unavoidable as identified in the Housing Element EIR. Because the proposed project would result in no impact on historic resources, the proposed project would not contribute to, exacerbate, or increase the significant unavoidable impact identified in the Housing Element EIR. No further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Sections 15183 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-27
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

4.6 ENERGY

Significant
Impact
Identified in
Housing
Element EIR
Project
Contributes to
Identified
Housing Element
EIR Impact
New or More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?

b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

4.6.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.5 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to energy. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to energy would be less than significant, and no mitigation was prescribed. The Housing Element EIR determined that although construction and operation of future development facilitated by the Housing Element would require temporary and long-term consumption of energy resources, future development would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources with adherence to State and local regulations. In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that the Housing Element would be consistent with the State plans and General Plan policies related to energy efficiency and utilizing renewable energy.

4.6.2 Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?
Construction Energy Use. The anticipated construction schedule assumes that construction of the proposed project would begin in March 2026 and last for approximately 21 months. The proposed project would require demolition, grading, site preparation, and building activities during construction.

Proposed project construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site for grading activities, and building construction.

Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. To increase energy efficiency on the site during project construction, idling times would be restricted to 5 minutes or less and construction workers would be required to shut off idle equipment, as required by COA: Public Works – Implement Air District-Recommended Measures During Construction. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources.

Operational Energy Use. Typically, energy consumption is associated with fuel used for vehicle trips and electricity and natural gas use.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-28
The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest California Energy Code and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) standards, including any locally adopted amendments, and would include solar panels, which would help to reduce energy consumption. In 2018, SB 100 was passed, which committed California to generating all electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045. While the proposed project would include natural gas, the project would be required to comply with State building code requirements as Title 24 advances to implement the building decarbonization goals. In addition, the proposed project also would use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). The expected energy consumption during operation of the proposed project would be consistent with typical usage rates for residential uses; however, energy consumption is largely a function of personal choice and the physical structure and layout of buildings. It can be assumed that implementation of the proposed project would result in additional energy demand in the project area; however, as the proposed project would be located in a primarily developed urban area, the proposed project is not expected to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electricity or natural gas resources.

The proposed project would also result in energy usage associated with gasoline for project-related trips. The proposed project would generate a net increase of 436 average daily trips. Based on fuel consumption obtained from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Emission Factor model (EMFAC2021), approximately 540.5 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 156.2 million gallons of diesel fuel will be consumed from vehicle trips in Alameda County in 2024. Therefore, based on the total fuel usage in Alameda County and the minimal increase in average daily trips, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would negligibly increase the annual fuel use in Alameda County. Additionally, the project site is served by existing sidewalks along Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street and is located within 0.5 mile of several intersecting major bus routes, including AC Transit Lines 7, 18, and FS. The proposed project would also provide 97 secure bicycle parking spaces for the proposed residential uses in a covered bike storage area. Therefore, the project would support the ability of residents and employees to use alternative modes of transportation. As such, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

Given the location of the project and proposed improvements, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in electricity, natural gas, or transportation-related energy, such that it would result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and there would be no impact.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
In 2002, the State Legislature passed SB 1389, which required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every 2 years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-29
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) fleet operators, in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and their infrastructure needs, as well as encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

The most recently adopted CEC energy report is the 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update.22 The 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs. The 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update covers a broad range of topics, including implementation of SB 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response, transmission and landscape-scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to SB 1383), updates on Northern California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and resiliency.

Locally, the Berkeley City Council adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2009 and has made additional commitments regarding renewable energy and energy efficiency including:
• 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035;
• Net-Zero Carbon Emissions by 2045 in alignment with Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-55-18;
• Declaring a Climate Emergency and resolving to become a Fossil Fuel Free City; and the • Cities Race to Zero Campaign: Committed to reducing emissions 60.5 percent from 2018 levels by 2030, an emission reduction target that reflects Berkeley’s fair share of the 50 percent global reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).

As indicated above, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be negligible in comparison to the State’s available energy sources, and energy impacts would be minimal at the regional level. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level and the project’s total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. As discussed above, while the proposed project would include natural gas, the proposed project would be required to comply with State building code requirements as Title 24 advances to implement building decarbonization goals.

As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and there would be no impact.

22 California Energy Commission. 2024. 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Docket Number 24- IEPR-01.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-30

4.6.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, and there would be no impact peculiar to the proposed project or the project site related to energy. Impacts related to energy would remain less than significant as identified in the Housing Element EIR. No further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Sections 15183 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-31
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Significant
Impact
Identified in
Housing
Element EIR
Project
Contributes to
Identified
Housing Element
EIR Impact
New or More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

4.7.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.6 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to geology and soils. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to geology and soils would either be less than significant or less than significant with incorporation of prescribed mitigation measures. The Housing Element EIR indicated that portions of the city are located within the Hayward Fault Zone and determined that development facilitated by the Housing Element would be subject to seismically induced ground shaking and other seismic hazards, including liquefaction and landslides, which could damage structures and result in loss of property and risk to human health and safety.

However, the Housing Element EIR determined that implementation of State-mandated building standards and compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act Earthquake Fault Act, the California Building Code (CBC), and the City’s General Plan policies and actions (including Policies S-13A, S-13B, and S-14B) and BMC would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. The Housing Element EIR also determined that with adherence to existing laws and regulations and standard engineering practices, impacts related to soil erosion, the loss of soil, and expansive soils would also be less than significant. In addition, because the Housing Element would not include septic tanks or alternative Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-32
wastewater disposal systems, the Housing Element EIR determined that no impact related to septic tanks would occur.

The Housing Element EIR also determined that future development facilitated by the Housing Element could impact paleontological resources during construction ground-disturbing activities and prescribed Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 details requirements for projects where ground disturbance below the level of prior disturbance and into native soils is proposed to occur in areas mapped as Pleistocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf), Orinda Formation (Tor), or Knoxville Formation (Kjk). With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the Housing Element EIR determined that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

4.7.2 Project Impacts
The California Geological Survey (CGS) mapped Seismic Hazard Zones that delineate areas susceptible to geologic hazards (including earthquakes, liquefaction, and landslides) that require additional investigation to determine the extent and magnitude of potential ground failure.

According to the CGS, the project site is not located within any Seismic Hazard Zone. 23 However, as provided in the Housing Element EIR, the project site is underlain by soils classified as Urban land- Tierra complex, 2-5 percent slopes, which have a high potential for expansiveness. Therefore, as required by the CBC and the City’s General Plan Action S-14B, a project-specific geotechnical evaluation would be required for the proposed project in order to provide geotechnical recommendations for development of proposed building foundations.

The City has adopted the 2022 CBC (CCR Title 24), with local amendments, which provides for stringent construction requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk. The design and construction of the proposed project is required to conform with, or exceed, current best standards for earthquake resistant construction in accordance with the 2022 CBC (or more recent applicable code) and with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical practice for seismic design in Northern California.
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides?
The California Supreme Court concluded in its CBIA v. Air District decision that “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will affect a project’s future users or residents.” With this ruling, CEQA no longer considers the impact of the environment on a project (e.g., the impact of existing seismic hazards on new project occupants) to be an environmental impact unless the project could exacerbate an existing environmental hazard. The proposed project

23 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. September 23.

Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. (accessed March 2025).

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-33
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) would not change existing seismic hazards and therefore would not exacerbate existing hazards related to surface fault rupture and seismic ground shaking. As such, the following discussions of seismic hazards are provided for informational purposes only.

Fault Rupture. Fault-rupture hazard results in ground breakage and displacement along fault traces during earthquakes. Fault rupture is generally expected to occur along active fault traces. Areas susceptible to fault rupture are delineated by the CGS Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and require specific geological investigations prior to development to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property posed by earthquake-induced ground failure. The project site is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.24 The closest fault zone to the project site is the Hayward Fault Zone, located approximately

0.7 mile east of the project site. As such, it is unlikely that active traces of the Hayward Fault are present within the project site, and the risk for a fault-rupture hazard to exist on the site is low.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.

Ground Shaking. Seismic ground shaking generally refers to all aspects of motion of the Earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events.

As previously discussed, the closest fault zone to the project site is the Hayward Fault Zone, located approximately 0.7 mile east of the project site. The extent of ground shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. It is likely that the project site would experience strong ground shaking during the lifetime of the proposed project. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) published maps predicting ground-shaking intensities for various earthquake scenarios in the Bay Area. Three different scenarios were modeled for the Hayward Fault: (1) a moment-magnitude 7.1 earthquake on the northern segment, (2) a moment-magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the southern segment, and (3) a moment-magnitude 7.3 earthquake on the entire length of the Hayward Fault. Each of these models predicts extreme ground shaking in the vicinity of the site. The probability of a large earthquake on the Hayward Fault is believed to be high during the life of the proposed project.

The risk of ground shaking impacts is reduced through adherence to the design and materials standards set forth in the 2022 CBC. Therefore, compliance with the existing building codes, as described above, would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be reduced to the extent feasible.

It is acknowledged that seismic hazards cannot be completely eliminated, even with site-specific geotechnical design and advanced building practices. However, the seismic design standards of the 2022 CBC are intended to prevent catastrophic building failure in the most severe earthquakes currently anticipated. Therefore, compliance with the existing building codes, described above, would ensure that people or structures would not be adversely affected by earthquake-induced ground shaking.

24 California Department of Conservation (DOC). DOC Maps: Geologic Hazards, Seismic Hazards Program:

Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/maps-data (accessed March 2025).

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-34
Seismic-Related Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. During ground shaking, these soils lose strength and acquire a “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay) may also liquefy. According to the CGS, the project site is not located within a Seismic Hazard Zone for seismically-induced liquefaction.25 In addition, final grading, foundation, and building plans must be designed in accordance with the 2022 CBC. These designs would include measures that would address, as necessary, the potential for differential settlement related to liquefaction. Therefore, compliance with the existing regulations would ensure that people or structures would not be adversely affected by liquefaction associated with ground shaking.

Landslides. Seismically-induced landslides occur as the rapid movement of large masses of soil on unstable slopes during an earthquake. According to the CGS, the project site is not located within a Seismic Hazard Zone for seismically-induced landslides.26 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.

Based on the analysis presented above, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soil erosion, which is discussed in detail in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, could occur during project grading and construction. As discussed in Section 4.10, compliance with the City’s COA: Stormwater Requirements and COA: Public Works, including implementation of BMPs that address soil erosion during construction, would ensure that potential impacts related to erosion of topsoil during construction would not occur.

The proposed project would replace all existing impervious surface area, resulting in no net change in the total impervious surface area at the project site. The remaining portion of the site would consist of pervious surface area, which would contain landscaping that would minimize on-site erosion by stabilizing the soil. Therefore, on-site erosion impacts would be minimal. Additionally, compliance with Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) requirements and standard conditions of approval require applicants to establish and maintain drainage patterns so as to not adversely affect adjacent properties and rights-of-way. For these reasons, potential on- and off-site erosion impacts during project operation would not occur.

25 Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. September 23. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. (accessed March 2025). 26 Ibid.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-35
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
As discussed above, the proposed project would not be susceptible to landslide or liquefaction because the project site is not located within a mapped landslide or liquefaction zone. In addition, the proposed project’s required compliance with existing regulations, including the 2022 CBC, would reduce the potential risks to people and structures. Final grading, foundation, and building plans would be designed in accordance with the 2022 CBC (or more recent applicable code). Therefore, compliance with the existing regulations would ensure that the potential impacts associated with potential landslide, liquefaction, or lateral spreading would be less than significant.

Subsidence or collapse can result from the removal of subsurface water resulting in either catastrophic or gradual depression of the surface elevation of the project site. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA)27 prepared for the proposed project, the depth to groundwater at the project site is approximately 17 feet below ground surface (bgs). Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to require excavation to a maximum depth of 6 feet for construction of utilities, drainage facilities, and parking facilities. Based on the depth to groundwater at the project site and the maximum depth of excavation, groundwater dewatering is not anticipated to be required during construction. Potential impacts related to subsidence or soil collapse would not occur.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink-swell potential is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume.

Plasticity indexes greater than 15 usually indicate that a swelling problem may exist, and the swell percentage generally increases with the plasticity indexes.28 In general, clays have a higher plasticity index, silts have a lower plasticity index, and soils with a plasticity index of 0 typically have little or no silt or clay.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conversation Service Web Soil Survey and the Housing Element EIR, the project site is entirely underlain by the Urban land-Tierra complex, 20 to 5 percent slopes.29,30 The Urban land-Tierra complex typically consists of

27 ACC Environmental Consultants. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1685 Shattuck Avenue/2109 Virginia Street, ACC Project Number: 10230-001.00. February 9. 28 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1977. An evaluation of expedient methodology for identification of potentially expansive soils. Report No. FHWA-RD-77-94. June. 29 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conversation Service. 2023a. Web Soil Survey.

Website: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed March 2025). 30 A “complex” consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-36
loam in the first 12 inches, clay between 12 to 32 inches bgs, and sandy clay loam between 32 and 60 inches bgs.31 This complex is well to moderately drained, and the depth to restrictive feature (i.e., bedrock) is more than 80 inches.32
As discussed above, the project site is underlain by the Urban land-Tierra complex, which is considered to have a high potential for expansiveness, as provided in the Housing Element EIR.

However, the proposed project would be required to comply with the 2022 CBC and the City’s General Plan Action S-14B, which would require a project-specific geotechnical evaluation to ensure that impacts from development associated with implementation of the proposed project on expansive soil are minimized. In addition, final grading, foundation, and building plans would be designed in accordance with the 2022 CBC and would include measures to either: (1) excavate the existing fill materials susceptible to expansion and replace the materials with engineered fill or further evaluate the possible reuse of the materials as engineered fill; or (2) design foundations and other improvements to withstand the shrinking and swelling cycles of the soils without causing significant damage. These measures would be incorporated into the proposed project as conditions of approval. Compliance with the existing 2022 CBC would ensure that the potential impacts associated with expansive soils would not occur.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The project site would be served by a wastewater conveyance system maintained by the City and would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As such, the proposed project would have no impact related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
There are no identified paleontological resources or unique geologic features or sites within, or in the vicinity of, the project site. However, as provided in the Housing Element EIR, the project site is underlain by Pleistocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf). As such, implementation of Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Demolition, site preparation, and construction activities associated with the proposed project could adversely impact previously unidentified fossils. Such fossils, if present, could be identified during deep excavation. However, the proposed project would be required to implement Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which would require a qualified paleontologist to determine the project’s potential to significantly impact paleontological resources, conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding

31 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conversation Service. 2023b. Web Soil Survey, Report - Map Unit Description: 150 – Urban land-Tierra complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes. Website:
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed March 2025). 32 Ibid.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-37
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) the appearance of fossils and procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff, and monitor ground-disturbing construction activities. In addition, development projects that require a use permit are required to comply with the City’s COA:

Paleontological Resources, which requires that work be stopped in the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during construction. Implementation of Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and compliance with COA: Paleontological Resources would ensure that this impact would be less than significant because paleontological resources would be properly documented and protected if encountered during project construction.

COA: Paleontological Resources. (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP 1995,1996]). The qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

Implementation of the appropriate procedures required by Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and COA: Paleontological Resources for the treatment of paleontological resources would ensure that these resources are protected if encountered at the project site during construction by including stop work procedures in the event of a find as well as handling procedures.

4.7.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, and there would be no impact peculiar to the proposed project or the project site related to geology and soils. Impacts related to geology and soils would remain less than significant with incorporation of mitigation, as identified in the Housing Element EIR. No further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Sections 15183 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-38

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Significant
Impact
Identified in
Housing
Element EIR
Project
Contributes to
Identified
Housing Element
EIR Impact
New or More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

4.8.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.7 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to GHG emissions. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation was prescribed. The Housing Element EIR determined that because GHG emissions from future development facilitated by the proposed project would not exceed the Air District’s interpolated 2031 targets for annual emissions, future development would not directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that implementation of the Housing Element would not conflict with GHG reduction goals and policies in the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, or the City’s CAP.

4.8.2 Project Impacts
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2);
• Methane (CH4);
• Nitrous oxide (N2O);
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While manmade GHGs include naturally occurring GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere.

Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-39
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere, and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes such as oceanic evaporation.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by 1 unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by 1 unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of CO2e.
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
This section describes the proposed project’s construction- and operation-related GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change. The Air District did not address emission thresholds for construction in their CEQA Guidelines; however, the Air District encourages quantification and disclosure. The Housing Element EIR included a quantitative analysis of GHG emissions associated with development of residential units under the Housing Element. As the project site was identified as an Opportunity Site for residential development in the City’s Housing Element, the proposed project’s anticipated GHG emissions associated with project construction and operation were included in the GHG emissions analysis contained in the Housing EIR. Project specific construction and operational emissions for the proposed project are discussed in this section.

Construction Activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

Implementation of the City’s COA: Public Works – Implement Air District-Recommended Measures During Construction, as identified under Section 4.3.b, Air Quality, would reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of construction vehicle idling and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment. This measure is implemented by the City and the Air District to ensure that GHG emissions would be less than significant. In addition, construction activities would be minimal, and GHG emissions generated during construction of the proposed project would be short term in nature, lasting only for the duration of the construction period. Since GHG emissions associated with construction activities would not represent a long-term source of GHG emissions and would cease once construction is completed, project construction impacts associated with GHG emissions would not occur.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-40
Operational Emissions. Long-term GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would typically be generated from mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Mobile-source GHG emissions would include project-generated vehicle trips to and from the project site. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site. Energy source emissions would be generated at off-site utility providers from increased electricity demand generated by the proposed project.

Waste source emissions generated by the proposed project include energy generated by transporting and managing project generated waste. In addition, water source emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.

The Housing Element EIR found that operational GHG emissions associated with development facilitated by the Housing Element would result in an increase of 1.7 MT of CO2e per service population per year, below the interpolated Air District 2031 target of 3.7 MT of CO2e per service population per year. As such, for the purpose of this analysis, the proposed project will be compared to the GHG efficiency of 1.7 MT CO2e per service population.

Consistent with the Housing Element EIR, GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Table

4.8.A shows the calculated GHG emissions for the proposed project. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Table 4.8.A: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source Category Operational Emissions (metric tons per year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile 236.8 <0.1 <0.1 241.1
Area 7.6 <0.1 <0.1 7.6
Energy 101.0 <0.1 <0.1 101.6
Water 3.7 0.1 <0.1 7.8
Waste 7.3 0.7 0.0 25.6
Total Operational Emissions 383.7
Total Annual Service Population Emissions (Metric Tons/Year/Service Population) 1.4 Source: Compiled by LSA (July 2025).

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
N2O = nitrous oxide

As shown in Table 4.8.A, the proposed project would generate approximately 383.7 metric tons of CO2e. As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would result in approximately three new employees and 261 residents on the project site. Therefore, the total service population (residents plus employees) would be 264 people. As such, the project’s GHG emissions would result in a GHG efficiency of 1.4 metric tons CO2e per service population, which would be below the GHG efficiency of 1.7 MT CO2e per service population identified in the Housing Element EIR and also below the interpolated 2031 Air District targets for annual emissions. As such, Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-41
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment, and there would be no impact.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The City adopted a CAP33 in 2009 with the goal of reducing communitywide GHG emissions by 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. The core recommendation strategies and actions of the CAP are based on the following topics:
• Sustainable Transportation and Land Use
• Building Energy Use
• Waste Reduction and Recycling
• Community Outreach and Empowerment
• Preparing for Climate Change Impacts
While the CAP is not considered a “qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan” for the purposes of streamlining GHG emissions analysis under CEQA, the City actively uses it for guiding GHG emission reduction efforts. Since publication of the CAP, the City added additional climate goals to support implementation of the CAP:34
• 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035
• Net-Zero Carbon Emissions by 2045, in alignment with Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-55-18
• Declared a Climate Emergency and resolved to become a Fossil Fuel Free City • Cities Race to Zero Campaign: Committed to reducing emissions 60.5 percent from 2018 levels by 2030, an emission reduction target that reflects Berkeley’s fair share of the 50 percent global reduction in CO2e
The proposed project would result in the development of a new eight-story mixed-use residential building containing a total of 110 dwelling units and approximately 690 square feet of commercial space on an infill site that would locate residents and employees near existing residential and commercial uses. The project site is served by existing sidewalks along Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street and is located within 0.5 miles of several intersecting major bus routes, including AC Transit Lines 7, 18, and FS. The proposed project would provide 97 secure bicycle parking spaces for the proposed residential uses in a covered bike storage area. Therefore, the project would support the ability of residents and employees to use alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, as further discussed in Section 4.16, Transportation, given the location of the proposed project and proposed improvements, the proposed project would result in a less than significant VMT impact.

33 Berkeley, City of. 2009. City of Berkeley Climate Action Plan. June. 34 Berkeley, City of. 2022a. City of Berkeley 2023–2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2022010331. August.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-42
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with sustainable transportation and land use measures identified in the CAP.

As discussed previously in Section 4.6, Energy, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest California Energy Code and CALGreen Code standards (including any locally adopted amendments) and would include solar panels, which would help to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. In addition, while the proposed project would include natural gas, the proposed project would be required to comply with State building code requirements as Title 24 advances to implement the building decarbonization goals. The proposed project would also include low-flow plumbing fixtures and landscape irrigation. The proposed project would be consistent with the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Waste Diversion and Recycling Mandate, which would reduce solid waste production by 75 percent, and the Berkeley Green Code, which also requires 100 percent of concrete, asphalt, and land clearing debris to be reused and recycled. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the building energy use or waste and recycling measures identified in the CAP. In addition, the City’s COA:

Construction and Demolition Diversion and COA: Low-Carbon Concrete (provided below) would require implementation of a Construction Waste Management Plan and compliance with the Berkeley Green Code.

COA: Construction and Demolition Diversion.Applicant shall submit a Construction Waste Management Plan that meets the requirements of BMC Chapter 19.37 including 100 percent diversion of asphalt, concrete, excavated soil and land-clearing debris and a minimum of 65 percent diversion of other nonhazardous construction and demolition waste.

COA: Low-Carbon Concrete.The project shall verify compliance with the Berkeley Green Code (BMC Chapter 19.37) including use of concrete mix design with a cement reduction of at least 25 percent.

Given the above, the proposed project would be consistent the City’s CAP, commitment to carbon neutrality by 2045, and the Climate Emergency declaration and would implement measures designed to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

4.8.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, and there would be no impact peculiar to the proposed project or the project site related to GHG emissions. Impacts related to GHG would remain less than significant as identified in the Housing Element EIR. No further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Sections 15183 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-43
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Significant
Impact
Identified in
Housing
Element EIR
Project
Contributes to
Identified
Housing Element
EIR Impact
New or More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

4.9.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.8 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant, and no mitigation was prescribed. The Housing Element EIR indicated that implementation of the Housing Element would facilitate the development of new residential uses in the city that would not involve the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of new residences could result in an increase in the overall routine, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in the city for construction activities, including within 0.25 mile of a school. However, required compliance with applicable regulations related to hazardous materials and compliance with General Plan policies and City COAs, including COA: Toxics, would minimize the risk of releases and exposure to these materials to less than significant. In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that implementation of the Housing Element would accommodate development on or near hazardous materials sites; however, compliance with applicable regulations and COA: Toxics (which requires site characterization and cleanup, if necessary) would ensure less than significant impacts.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-44
The Housing Element EIR also indicated there are no airports within 2 miles of the city, the city is not within the influence area of any airport, and implementation of the Housing Element would not result in physical changes that could interfere with or impair emergency response or evacuation.

Therefore, these impacts were determined to be less than significant.

4.9.2 Project Impacts
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Phase I ESA35 and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA)36 prepared for the proposed project. These reports are provided herein as Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing approximately 4,604-square- foot, two-story commercial building, and the construction of a new eight-story, mixed-use residential building consisting of 112,969 square feet of residential space and 690 square feet of commercial space in the southwest corner of the ground floor and associated improvements. Based on the Phase I ESA findings, the project site has a history of subsurface contamination. The project site is located in an Environmental Management Area (EMA) (i.e., areas in the city known or suspected to have groundwater contamination).37
Hazardous materials (e.g., oil, grease, fuels, paint) would be transported and used on site for proposed construction activities. The operational phase of the proposed project may also include storage and use of small amounts of hazardous materials associated with commercial uses (e.g., cleaning products) on the project site. The routine transport, use, or disposal of these hazardous materials could pose a potential hazard to construction workers and future employees working at the project site because they would be handling the hazardous materials and could therefore be exposed through inhalation of vapors, direct contact with skin, or accidental ingestion. The routine transport, use, or disposal of these hazardous materials would not pose a significant hazard to the public or environment unless the hazardous materials were accidentally spilled or released into the environment, as discussed In Section 4.9.b, below.

Worker health and safety is regulated at the federal level by the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA regulations include training requirements for construction workers and a requirement that hazardous materials are accompanied by the manufacturer’s Safety Data Sheets (SDSs). The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 authorizes states to establish their own safety and health programs with OSHA approval. Worker health and safety protections in California are regulated by the California

35 ACC Environmental Consultants. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1685 Shattuck Avenue/2109 Virginia Street, ACC Project Number: 10230-001.00. February 9. 36 ACC Environmental Consultants. 2024. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1685 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, California 94709. August 14.
37 Berkeley, City of. n.d. Community GIS Portal. Website: https://berkeley.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=2c7dfafbb1f64e159f4fdf28a52f51c6&showLayers=Berkeley%20Parcels;Envi ronment (accessed March 2025).

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-45
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). The DIR includes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), which acts to protect workers from safety hazards through its California Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) program. Cal/OSHA regulations include requirements for protective clothing, training, and limits on exposure to hazardous materials. California standards for workers dealing with hazardous materials are contained in CCR Title 8 and include practices for all industries (General Industrial Safety Orders), and specific practices for construction and other industries. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials at the project site during construction activities would be required to comply with a project Health and Safety Plan (HASP) prepared in accordance with CCR Title 8, which would reduce potential health hazards for construction workers from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

In 1990 and 1994, the federal Hazardous Material Transportation Act was amended to improve the protection of life, property, and the environment from the inherent risks of transporting hazardous material in all major modes of commerce. The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) developed hazardous materials regulations that govern the classification, packaging, communication, transportation, and handling of hazardous materials, as well as employee training and incident reporting. The transportation of hazardous materials is subject to USDOT, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and State regulations. The California Highway Patrol, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) are responsible for enforcing federal and State regulations pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials.

Construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of various waste materials that would require recycling and/or disposal, including some waste materials that may be classified as hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes would be required to be transported by a licensed hazardous waste hauler and disposed of at facilities that are permitted to accept such materials as required by the USDOT, RCRA, and State regulations.

In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s COA: Toxics, including preparation of a site-specific Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) (COA: Toxics[D]), preparation of a hazardous materials survey prior to demolition (COA: Toxics[E]), and a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) in compliance with BMC Section 15.12.040 and California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Div. 20, if the proposed project stores or handles hazardous materials during construction in aggregate quantities equal to or greater than 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet of compressed gases, or generates any quantity of hazardous waste (COA: Toxics[F]).

COA: Toxics. The applicant shall contact the Toxics Management Division (TMD) at 1947 Center Street or (510) 981-7470 to determine which of the following documents are required and timing for their submittal:

A. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (per ASTM 1527). A recent Phase I ESA (less than 2 years old) shall be submitted to the Toxics Management Division for developments for: all new commercial, industrial and mixed-use developments and all improvement projects that require work 5 or more feet below grade, and all new residential buildings with more than four dwelling units located in the Environmental Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-46
Management Area (or EMA). The EMA can be viewed at: City of Berkeley Community GIS Portal (arcgis.com)
B. Depending on the findings in the Phase I, a Phase II or additional investigation may be necessary. Any available soils and groundwater analytical data available for projects listed in this section must also be submitted to TMD.

C. Environmental Site Clearance. The applicant shall provide environmental screening clearance from either the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), or the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health’s Local Oversight Program (LOP). Clearance from one of these regulatory agencies will ensure that the property meets development investigation and cleanup standards for the specific use proposed on the property.

Environmental screening clearance shall be submitted to the City of Berkeley’s Toxics Management Division prior to issuance of any building permits.

D. Soil and Groundwater Management Plan. A site-specific Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) shall be submitted to Toxics Management Division (TMD) for all non-residential projects, and residential or mixed-use projects with more than four dwelling units, that: (1) are in the Environmental Management Area (EMA), as shown on the most recent City of Berkeley EMA map, and (2) propose any excavations deeper than 5 feet below grade or if significant soils removal is anticipated. The SGMP shall be submitted to the TMD with the project’s building permit application and shall be approved by TMD prior to issuance of the building permit.

The SGMP shall comply with the hazardous materials and waste management standards required by BMC Section 15.12.100, the stormwater pollution prevention requirements of San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Order No. R2-2009-0074, California hazardous waste generator regulations (Title 22 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 66260 et seq.), and the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s Ordinance 311, and shall include the following:
i. procedures for soil and groundwater management including identification of pollutants and disposal methods;
ii. procedures to manage odors, dust and other potential nuisance conditions expected during development;
iii. notification to TMD within 24 hours of the discovery of any previously undiscovered contamination; and
iv. the name and phone number of the individual responsible for implementing the SGMP and who will respond to community questions or complaints.

TMD may require additional information or impose additional conditions as deemed necessary to protect human health and the environment. All requirements of the approved SGMP shall be deemed conditions of approval.

E. Demolitions & Renovations – Building Materials Survey. A hazardous materials survey for building materials and plans on hazardous materials and hazardous waste removal and disposal is required and must be prepared by qualified professionals, and submitted to the Toxics Management Division (TMD) prior to issuance of the building permit. i. The survey shall include the identification of all materials to be disturbed for lead- based paints, PCB containing equipment and caulking, hydraulic fluids, refrigerants, Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-47
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) treated wood, and mercury containing devices (including fluorescent light bulbs and mercury switches), asbestos and other hazardous materials and chemicals. ii. If asbestos is identified, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 11-2- 401.3 a notification must be made and the J number must be made available to the City of Berkeley Permit Service Center. Contractors must follow state regulations where there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos containing material (8 Cal. Code Regs. §1529, §341.6 et seq.) iii. The report to the TMD shall include, in addition to the survey, plans on hazardous materials and hazardous waste removal and disposal that comply with State and Federal codes including California Code of Regulations (CCR) 66260 et seq. iv. Documentation evidencing disposal of hazardous waste in compliance with the survey shall be submitted to TMD within 30 days of the completion of the demolition.

Please note, the PCB Screening Form required by Public Works, Engineering, is a separate requirement and does not address the PCB identification requirement of the Toxics Management Division.

F. Hazardous Materials Business Plan. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) in compliance with BMC Section 15.12.040 and California Health & Safety Code, Chapter

6.95 Div. 20, shall be submitted to the Toxics Management Division through the California Environmental Reporting System: http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/ for chemicals used or stored on site during construction that exceed reporting thresholds. The reporting is required if your facility stores or handles hazardous materials in aggregate quantities equal to or greater than 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet of compressed gases, or generates any quantity of hazardous waste. This includes welding gases, emergency generator fuel, paints, etc.

Additionally, the business occupant must submit an HMBP within 30 days of starting operations.

G. Petroleum Storage. A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan is required to be prepared and implemented for facilities with any one of the following:
i. Aggregate aboveground petroleum storage capacities of 1,320 gallons or more stored in aboveground storage containers, tanks, oil-filled equipment, or ii. One or more tank(s) in an underground area (TIUGA) with petroleum storage capacities of 55 gallons or greater. More information on TIUGAs can be found here:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/pipeline-safety-and-cupa/certified-unified- program-agency-cupa/aboveground-petroleum-storage-act/tank-in-an- underground-area-tiuga/
The SPCC plan must be prepared prior to beginning operations and you must submit facility information to Toxics Management Division (TMD) through the California Environmental Reporting System: http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/. The SPCC plan will be reviewed during the site inspection and shall not be submitted in CERS or to the TMD.

Compliance with COA: Toxics and the regulations described above (including OSHA and Cal/OSHA regulations, CCR Title 8, and USDOT, RCRA, and State regulations) would ensure that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with the Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-48
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials by ensuring that these materials are properly handled during construction of the proposed project.

Occupation of the proposed commercial and residential uses is expected to utilize relatively small amounts of hazardous materials (e.g., chemicals associated with fuel for landscape maintenance equipment, solvents, cleaning products, pesticides/fertilizers, and other similar chemicals). These materials are substantially similar to household chemicals and solvents already in general and wide use throughout the city and in the vicinity of the project site. Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations would ensure the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment from the routine transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The public and/or the environment could be affected by the release of hazardous materials from the proposed project into the environment by: (1) exposing workers and/or the public to potentially contaminated soil and groundwater during construction and/or operation of the project, or (2) exposing workers and/or the public to hazardous building materials (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], lead paint, asbestos) during demolition of the existing commercial structures.

However, development projects that require a use permit are required to comply with COA: Toxics, which addresses each of these potential impacts (see Section 4.9.a, above).

On-Site Hazardous Building Materials. According to the Phase I ESA, the project site appeared to be undeveloped land in 1894. By 1911, the project site was developed with five dwellings to the north and east, two storefronts to the southwest, and an office building to the south. The existing structure was initially built in 1906 and was remodeled several times. By 1929, the project site was redeveloped as a drugstore to the southwest, four storefronts to the west, two multi-family dwellings to the north, and a dry-cleaning facility with an associated office to the east. In addition, the structure suffered a number of fires during its history, the last of which (in 1981) destroyed almost the entire building. Only the portion of the building fronting Shattuck Avenue was repaired/reconstructed. Due to the age of the building on the project site, asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paints (LBP) may be present in the buildings.38 Demolition activities could cause the release of asbestos and lead into the environment if ACMs and LBPs are present in the buildings.

The City’s COA: Toxics(E), as outlined above, requires that prior to issuance of a building permit, a hazardous materials survey for building materials and plans on hazardous materials and hazardous waste removal and disposal is required and must be prepared by qualified professionals. The survey shall include, but not be limited to, the identification of all materials to be disturbed for LBPs, PCB- containing equipment, and devices containing caulking, hydraulic fluids, refrigerants, treated wood, and mercury (including fluorescent light bulbs and mercury switches), asbestos, and other

38 ACC Environmental Consultants. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1685 Shattuck Avenue/2109 Virginia Street, ACC Project Number: 10230-001.00. February 9.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-49
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) hazardous materials and chemicals. The survey shall include plans on hazardous waste or hazardous materials removal, reuse or disposal procedures to be implemented that fully comply with State hazardous waste generator requirements (22 CCR 66260 et seq.). The survey becomes a condition of any building or demolition permit for the proposed project. Documentation evidencing disposal of hazardous waste in compliance with the survey shall be submitted to the Toxics Management Division (TMD) within 30 days of the completion of the demolition. If asbestos is identified, Air District Regulation 11-2-401.3 notification must be made, and the Air District Job Number (or “J Number”) must be made available to the City of Berkeley Permit Service Center. Compliance with the requirements described above and outlined in COA: Toxics(E) would ensure that potential impacts related to hazardous building materials would not occur.

Hazardous Soil and Groundwater Conditions. Based on the findings of the most recent environmental investigations, the project site has a history of subsurface contamination. The project site is also listed on the Envirostore website/list and Geotracker database as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup site, and is identified as being located in an EMA, which are areas in the city known or suspected to have groundwater contamination.39 The project site was occupied by an on-site dry cleaner from 1920 to 1970, and a 5,000-gallon underground tank utilized to store Stoddard solvent was removed in July 1987. Although the project site was remediated under the oversight of the DTSC in 1987 and assessed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in 1989, the unit of measurement used to establish the residential soil vapor intrusion initial threshold changed and rendered benzene and chloroform concentrations above residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). A Phase I ESA was subsequently prepared.

The Phase I ESA identified a Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC) associated with the project site related to the Stoddard solvent release, and that a vapor intrusion condition (VEC) at the project site could not be ruled out, particularly with regard to redevelopment of the project site with residential uses. As such, a Phase II ESA was subsequently prepared.

The Phase II ESA included nine exploratory soil borings and five soil vapor borings in the vicinity of the Stoddard solvent underground tank in order to obtain soils, soil vapor, and groundwater samples. The samples were then analyzed and compared to ESLs for commercial uses. 40 The Phase II ESA determined that the soil vapor at the project site is currently impacted by Stoddard solvent, benzene, and perchloroethylene (PCE), which was attributed to the project site’s former dry- cleaning use. However, only the benzene concentrations exceeded the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s ESLs for vapor intrusion at commercial properties. In addition, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), benzene, and chloroform concentrations in the soil vapor generally exceed residential ESLs but not commercial ESLs. Because the highest detected benzene concentration in the soil vapor slightly exceeds the corresponding commercial ESL for benzene, the Phase II ESA identified benzene as the primary chemical of concern. The Phase II ESA also determined that current groundwater and soil impacts associated with the former use of the project site are negligible. Overall, the Phase II ESA concluded that the subsurface conditions at the project site are consistent with the former use of

39 Berkeley, City of. n.d. Community GIS Portal. Website: https://berkeley.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=2c7dfafbb1f64e159f4fdf28a52f51c6&showLayers=Berkeley%20Parcels; Environment (accessed March 2025).
40 Based on the proposed building design, commercial screening levels for soil vapor are applicable.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-50
the project site and with subsurface conditions described in the case closure letters granted by the DTSC in 1987 and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in 1999. Because no land use restrictions or continuing obligations were required by DTSC and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, the Phase II ESA concluded that no further assessment or regulatory oversight is necessary. Further, the Phase II ESA indicated that proposed building design, which locates parking and commercial uses on the ground floor and would be constructed on a mat slab, is sufficient to mitigate residual soil vapor impacts. In addition, the proposed project would include a chemically-resistant vapor membrane product designed to mitigate the chemicals of concern at the project site, including a permeable gravel layer beneath the membrane and foundation slab. As such, potential vapor intrusion concerns would be effectively addressed by the proposed project’s design, and no impact would occur.

As discussed above, the project site is located in an EMA, which are areas in the city known or suspected to have groundwater contamination.41 COA: Toxics(D) requires that an SGMP be prepared for all residential or mixed-use projects with four or more units that (1) are located within the EMA, and (2) propose any excavations deeper than 5 feet below grade. The proposed project is a mixed- use development within the EMA and would require excavation around approximately 5 feet below grade for construction of utilities and foundations; therefore, preparation of an SGMP would be required for the proposed project. The TMD may impose additional conditions as deemed necessary. All requirements of the approved SGMP would be conditions of approval of the requested Use Permits. Preparation and implementation of an SGMP in accordance with the requirements of COA: Toxics(D) would ensure that potential impacts associated with disturbance and excavation of potentially contaminated soil and groundwater at the project site would not occur.

Preparation and implementation of an SGMP for excavation and potential dewatering activities (as required by the TMD and described above) would ensure that the proposed project would not result in impacts to the public or the environment related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Berkwood Hedge Middle School (a public school located at 1798 Scenic Avenue), Bayhill High School (a public school located at 1940 Virginia Street), and the New School of Berkeley (a preschool located at 1606 Bonita Avenue) are all less than 0.25 mile from the project site. However, compliance with federal, State, and local regulations for the management of hazardous materials, as discussed in Sections 4.9.a and 4.9.b, above, would ensure that potential impacts to nearby schools associated with hazardous materials emissions and use at the project site would not occur.

41 Berkeley, City of. n.d. Community GIS Portal. Website: https://berkeley.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=2c7dfafbb1f64e159f4fdf28a52f51c6&showLayers=Berkeley%20Parcels; Environment (accessed March 2025).

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-51
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5 require the DTSC, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the California Department of Health Services, and CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board) to submit information pertaining to sites associated with solid waste disposal, hazardous waste disposal, LUST sites, and/or hazardous materials releases to the Secretary of Cal/EPA.

The project site is listed on the SWRCB’s Geotracker database as a LUST cleanup site.42 The project site is therefore included on lists of hazardous materials release sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As discussed in Sections 4.9.a and 4.9.b above, the project site has been the subject of several environmental investigations and remediation activities performed under the oversight of regulatory agencies. Preparation and implementation of an SGMP for excavation and potential dewatering activities (i.e., COA:Toxics[D]) and the chemically-resistant vapor membrane product designed to mitigate the chemicals of concern at the project site (including a permeable gravel layer beneath the membrane and foundation slab, which has been incorporated into the proposed project’s design) would ensure that impacts to construction workers, the surrounding public, future site occupants, and the environment related to past releases of hazardous materials into the environment would not occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is located over 10 miles north of the Oakland International Airport. The project site is not located within a public airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public use airport. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As such, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard to people working or residing in the area due to the proximity of an airport.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would be consistent with the policies outlined in the City of Berkeley General Plan’s Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element and would not obstruct emergency evacuation routes. Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street are the designated emergency access and evacuation routes in the project area.43 Because the proposed project would not include any modifications to the existing roadways in the vicinity of the project site, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to emergency access or an adopted emergency response

42 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 1999. Berkeley Village (T0600100187). Website:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0600100187 (accessed March 2025).
43 Berkeley, City of. 2001. Op. cit.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-52
plan. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The project site is in an urban area and is not within or adjacent to a wildland fire hazard area. As such, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

4.9.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, and there would be no impact peculiar to the proposed project or the project site related to hazards and hazardous materials. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would remain less than significant, as identified in the Housing Element EIR. No further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Sections 15183 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-53
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25)

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Significant
Impact
Identified in
Housing
Element EIR
Project
Contributes to
Identified
Housing Element
EIR Impact
New or More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;

iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or

iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

4.10.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.9 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant, and no mitigation was prescribed. The Housing Element EIR indicated that future development facilitated by the Housing Element would involve ground-disturbing activities and the use of heavy machinery that could release materials (including sediments and fuels) that could adversely affect water quality during construction. The operations of future development could also result in discharges to storm drains that could adversely affect water quality. However, the Housing Element EIR determined that compliance with required permits and existing regulations, including applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and the implementation of BMPs contained therein, would ensure that water quality impacts would be less than significant. The Housing Element EIR also determined that implementation of the Housing Element would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table through implementation of low impact development measures and on-site infiltration required by the C.3 provisions of the San Francisco Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-54
Bay RWQCB’s Municipal Regional Stormwater (MRP) NPDES Permit, and compliance with the BMC would increase the potential for groundwater recharge.

The Housing Element EIR also found that with required compliance with existing regulations, including applicable NPDES permits, future development facilitated by the Housing Element would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of future development sites, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. In addition, with required compliance with existing regulation the Housing Element EIR determined that future development would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding or exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. In addition, although future development would place housing and other structures within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Flood Hazard Areas and tsunami zones, the Housing Element EIR determined that compliance with the City’s General Plan, BMC, and the California Health and Safety Code would reduce potential effects associated with flood events to less than significant.

4.10.2 Project Impacts
The analysis in this section is based in part on the City of Berkeley C.3 Stormwater Requirements Checklist, Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP 3), Stormwater Controls for Development Project Checklist prepared for the proposed project (Stormwater Requirements Checklist).44 This report is provided as Appendix D.
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Regional Drainage. The project site is located within an urban and built-up area of Berkeley, and no major hydrologic features are in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is located within the Strawberry Creek Watershed, which includes Strawberry Creek and several unnamed tributaries.

Although portions of Strawberry Creek have been replaced by underground pipelines and culverts as part of the City’s storm drainage system, Strawberry Creek remains one of the few waterways in the urbanized East Bay that retains its natural character along most of its course.45 The Strawberry Creek Watershed drains to the University Avenue storm drain network, which discharges into San Francisco Bay at the terminus of University Avenue.46 The nearest existing storm drain pipes and inlets to the project site are located along Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street.

Regulatory Framework.The SWRCB and nine RWQCBs regulate water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. In Berkeley, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies in the region. Section 303(d) of the federal CWA requires that states identify water bodies including bays, rivers, streams, creeks, and coastal

44 Trachtenberg Architecture. City of Berkeley C.3 Stormwater Requirements Checklist, Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP 3), Stormwater Controls for Development Project Checklist. 45 Berkeley, City of. 2022a. City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2022010331. August.
46 Berkeley, City of. 2011. 2011 Watershed Management Plan. October.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-55
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) areas that do not meet water quality standards and the pollutants that are causing the impairment.

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) describe the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive while still meeting established water quality standards. A TMDL establishes limits for pollutant discharges into impaired water bodies. Central San Francisco Bay is listed as an impaired water body for several pollutants, including chlordane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, dioxin compounds (including 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachloro-dibenzodioxin [2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD]), furan compounds, invasive species, trash, mercury, PCBs, and selenium.47 Runoff water quality is regulated by the NPDES program (established through the federal CWA). The NPDES program objective is to control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies.

Compliance with NPDES permits is mandated by State and federal statutes and regulations. Locally, the NPDES program is administered by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. NPDES requirements that would apply to both the construction phase and the operations phase of the project are described below.

Construction. The proposed project includes demolition of the existing on-site structure and surface pavements and construction of the mixed-use residential building. Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters (i.e., Central San Francisco Bay).

Many areas in the city are known or suspected to have soil or groundwater contamination and are known as EMAs. The project site is located within an EMA.48 In addition, the proposed project would include the demolition of a structure subject to the TMD Building Demolition requirements due to the potential for ACMs and LBP to be present in the existing commercial building. As part of the TMD’s standard conditions for a site in the EMA and as required by City’s COA: Toxics(E), a hazardous materials survey would be prepared for the proposed project prior to demolition activities.

During construction, the entire 0.51-acre project site would be disturbed. Because construction of the proposed project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, the proposed project is not subject to the requirements of the SWRCB’s NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No.

CAS000002) (Construction General Permit). However, the proposed project would be required to

47 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. 2024 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). December 13. Website: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view. aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterboards.ca.gov%2Fwater_issues%2Fprograms%2Ftmdl%2F2023_20 24state_ir_reports%2Fapx-a-2024-303d-list-final.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK (accessed March 2025). 48 Berkeley, City of. n.d. Community GIS Portal. Website: https://berkeley.maps.arcgis. com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2c7dfafbb1f64e159f4fdf28a52f51c6&showLayers=Berkeley% 20Parcels;Environment (accessed March 2025).

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-56
comply with the City’s COAs outlined below, including COA: Stormwater Requirements and COAs:

Public Works.

COA: Stormwater Requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as described in BMC Section 17.20. The following conditions apply:

A. The project plans shall identify and show site-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to activities conducted on-site to limit to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants to the City's storm drainage system, regardless of season or weather conditions.

B. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) shall be covered; no other area shall drain onto this area. Drains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to the storm drain system; these drains should connect to the sanitary sewer. Applicant shall contact the City of Berkeley and EBMUD for specific connection and discharge requirements.

Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the City of Berkeley and EBMUD.

C. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that contribute to stormwater pollution. Where feasible, landscaping should be designed and operated to treat runoff. When and where possible, xeriscape and drought tolerant plants shall be incorporated into new development plans.

D. Design, location and maintenance requirements and schedules for any stormwater quality treatment structural controls shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review with respect to reasonable adequacy of the controls. The review does not relieve the property owner of the responsibility for complying with BMC Chapter

17.20 and future revisions to the City's overall stormwater quality ordinances. This review shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

E. All paved outdoor storage areas must be designed to reduce/limit the potential for runoff to contact pollutants.

F. All on-site storm drain inlets/catch basins must be cleaned at least once a year immediately prior to the rainy season. The property owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with proper operation and maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (pipelines, inlets, catch basins, outlets, etc.) associated with the project, unless the City accepts such facilities by Council action. Additional cleaning may be required by City of Berkeley Public Works Engineering Dept.

G. All on-site storm drain inlets must be labeled “No Dumping – Drains to Bay” or equivalent using methods approved by the City.

H. Most washing and/or steam cleaning must be done at an appropriately equipped facility that drains to the sanitary sewer. Any outdoor washing or pressure washing must be managed in such a way that there is no discharge or soaps or other pollutants to the storm drain. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the sanitary district with jurisdiction for receiving the discharge.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-57
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) I. All loading areas must be designated to minimize “run-on” or runoff from the area.

Accumulated waste water that may contribute to the pollution of stormwater must be drained to the sanitary sewer or intercepted and pretreated prior to discharge to the storm drain system. The property owner shall ensure that BMPs are implemented to prevent potential stormwater pollution. These BMPs shall include, but are not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control and spill cleanup.

J. Restaurants, where deemed appropriate, must be designed with a contained area for cleaning mats, equipment and containers. This contained wash area shall be covered or designed to prevent run-on or run-off from the area. The area shall not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should drain to the sanitary sewer, or collected for ultimate disposal to the sanitary sewer. Employees shall be instructed and signs posted indicating that all washing activities shall be conducted in this area. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the waste water treatment plant receiving the discharge.

K. Sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. If pressure washed, debris must be trapped and collected to prevent entry to the storm drain system. If any cleaning agent or degreaser is used, wash water shall not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the sanitary district with jurisdiction for receiving the discharge.

L. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and sub-contractors are aware of and implement all stormwater quality control measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs shall result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or a project stop work order.

COA: Public Works.All piles of debris, soil, sand, or other loose materials shall be covered at night and during rainy weather with plastic at least one-eighth millimeter thick and secured to the ground.

COA: Public Works.The applicant shall ensure that all excavation takes into account surface and subsurface waters and underground streams so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties and rights-of-way.

COA: Public Works.The project sponsor shall maintain sandbags or other devices around the site perimeter during the rainy season to prevent on-site soils from being washed off-site and into the storm drain system. The project sponsor shall comply with all City ordinances regarding construction and grading.

COA: Public Works.Prior to any excavation, grading, clearing, or other activities involving soil disturbance during the rainy season the applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion prevention plan by the Building and Safety Division and the Public Works Department. The applicant shall be responsible for following these and any other measures required by the Building and Safety Division and the Public Works Department.

In addition, the proposed project would implement construction BMPs including, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Construction BMPs applicable to the proposed project are detailed in the Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) 4-58
Stormwater Requirements Checklist completed for the proposed project.49 In addition, provision C.6 of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s MRP50 requires the City to implement a construction site inspection and control program at all construction sites, with follow-up and enforcement to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants and impacts on beneficial uses of receiving waters. Inspections must confirm implementation of appropriate and effective erosion and other construction pollutant controls by construction site operators/developers, and reporting must demonstrate the effectiveness of this inspection and problem solution. Compliance with COAs, as outlined above, including the incorporation of construction BMPs to target and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, would ensure that construction impacts related to violation of waste discharge requirements and water quality standards and degradation of water quality would not occur.

According to the Phase 1 ESA51 prepared for the proposed project, the depth to groundwater at the project site is approximately 17 feet bgs. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to require excavation to a maximum depth of 6 feet for construction of utilities, drainage facilities, and parking facilities. Based on the depth to groundwater at the project site and the maximum depth of excavation, groundwater dewatering is not anticipated to be required during construction. If groundwater is encountered during excavation and groundwater dewatering is required, the improper management and discharge of dewatering effluent into the storm drainage system or receiving waters could adversely affect water quality because contaminants and sediment may be present in the dewatering effluent.

For development projects within the EMA where dewatering is anticipated, the City’s TMD has adopted specific requirements. Since dewatering activities can draw in contamination from outside areas, monitoring of the groundwater discharges may be required. The TMD may require dewatering and monitoring plans to ensure the discharge of clean water and the protection of the community from vapors or other health hazards. Additionally, where there is sufficient information indicating soil contamination is present, the TMD could require testing of excavation spoils and documentation of proper disposal. The specific requirements for the proposed project would be specified by the City as standard conditions of approval, as outlined in COA: Toxics (refer to Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Additionally, as part the TMD’s standard conditions for a site in the EMA, an SGMP would be prepared for the proposed project that would establish the appropriate management practices for handling, treatment, and disposal of contaminated groundwater if encountered during construction. Compliance with City requirements and implementation of an SGMP would be required as part of the conditions of approval for the proposed project and would ensure that contaminated groundwater is not discharged to surface water. Therefore, groundwater dewatering impacts related to violation of waste discharge requirements and water quality standards and degradation of water quality would not occur.

49 Trachtenberg Architecture. City of Berkeley C.3 Stormwater Requirements Checklist, Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP 3), Stormwater Controls for Development Project Checklist. 50 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2022. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008.

May 11.
51 ACC Environmental Consultants. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1685 Shattuck Avenue/2109 Virginia Street, ACC Project Number: 10230-001.00. February 9.

Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-59
CEQA S E C T I O N S 1 5 1 8 3 A N D 1 5 1 6 2 C O N S I S T E N C Y A N A L Y S I S A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2109 V I R G I N I A S T R E E T P R O J E C T

B E R K E L E Y, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CBE1906.18 - 2109 Virginia Street\Products\2_Exemption\Updated Draft\2109 Virginia Street_Draft Consistency Analysis_August.docx (08/19/25) Infiltration of stormwater has the potential to affect groundwater quality in areas of shallow groundwater. As stated previously, the depth to groundwater at the project site is approximately 17 feet bgs. Therefore, due to the relatively shallow groundwater table, stormwater may infiltrate during project construction, potentially affecting groundwater quality given the direct path for pollutants to reach the groundwater table. Proposed construction BMPs, as required by COA:

Stormwater Requirements, would reduce infiltration of pollutants to groundwater during construction. Therefore, project construction would not substantially degrade groundwater quality.

Operation. The proposed project would result in the development of a new eight-story, mixed-use residential building containing a total of 110 dwelling units and approximately 690 square feet of commercial space on an infill site. According to the Stormwater Requirements Checklist prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project would replace all existing impervious surface area, resulting in no net change in the total impervious surface area at the project site. In addition, the proposed uses would intensify uses on the project site compared to existing conditions, which would increase the potential for pollutants of concern to be generated on the project site and discharged to surface waters during storm events. Increased vehicle trips to and from the project site could result in a greater potential for leaks of fuels and lubricants, tire wear particulates, brake dust, and fallout from exhaust emissions to convey petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and sediment off site during storm events. The proposed landscaping could contain residual pesticides and nutrients used for landscape maintenance. The intensification of land uses could result in increased trash generation over existing conditions.

Project operation and maintenance would be subject to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s MRP, Order No. R2-2022-0018, as amended by Order No. R2-2023-0019, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008.

Provision C.3 of the MRP sets forth appropriate and site-specific source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures for new and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new projects. According to the Stormwater Requirements Checklist, the proposed project is considered a regulated project because it is a redevelopment project that would create and/or replace more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). Regulated projects are required to implement LID source control, site design, and stormwater treatment BMPs. Source control BMPs are preventative measures that are implemented to prevent the introduction of pollutants into stormwater. Site design BMPs are stormwater management strategies that emphasize conservation and use of existing site features to reduce the amount of runoff and pollutant loading generated from a project site. Source control BMPs and site design BMPs applicable to the proposed project are detailed in the Stormwater Requirements Checklist completed for the proposed project, which is provided as Appendix D. Stormwater treatment BMPs are structural BMPs designed to treat and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters. Pursuant to Provision C.3 of the MRP, stormwater from the project site would be directed to the proposed vegetated areas and would be treated by flow-through planters (biotreatment) before being discharged to the existing stormwater infrastructure in the surrounding area, similar to existing conditions.

As previously discussed, infiltration of stormwater could affect groundwater quality in areas of shallow groundwater. The proposed project would be required to implement operational BMPs Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11