Berkeley City Council
January 27, 2026

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) 4-60
(including source control, site design, and Low Impact Development BMPs) to treat stormwater before it could reach groundwater. These proposed BMPs would treat stormwater runoff on site, and would reduce the volume of stormwater and the infiltration of pollutants into groundwater during operation. Furthermore, when stormwater is infiltrated, soil and plants absorb and filter pollutants and reduce the potential for pollutants of concern to reach groundwater. Therefore, infiltration of stormwater at the project site during operation would not substantially degrade groundwater quality.

In conclusion, compliance with the requirements of the MRP and COA: Stormwater Requirements, including incorporation of operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern, would ensure that impacts related to violation of waste discharge requirements and water quality standards and degradation of water quality would not occur.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The City of Berkeley is located within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, East Bay Plain Subbasin, which encompasses approximately 122 square miles in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The East Bay Plain Subbasin generally extends north to south from the San Pablo Bay to the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin near Hayward. A substantial amount of artificial fill (thicknesses ranging from 1 to 50 feet) has been placed within the basin, with the thickest deposits found nearer San Francisco Bay. Historical groundwater levels in the East Bay Plain Subbasin have varied between 10 to 140 feet below mean sea level; however, levels have been rising continuously since the 1950s.52
As previously discussed, according to the Phase 1 ESA53 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, dewatering would be temporary and would not result in long-term lowering of the groundwater levels.

In addition, as provided above, 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. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a change in the potential for infiltration to occur at the project site from existing conditions. Further, any change in infiltration at the project

52 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, East Bay Plain Subbasin. February 27. Website: water.ca.gov/Programs/ Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118 (accessed March 2025). 53 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

4-61
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) site would be minimal compared to the size of the groundwater basin and would not be anticipated to result in a net decrease in groundwater and aquifer levels.

Water supply to the proposed project would be provided by the EBMUD water system, which is supplied from the Mokelumne River.54 Because EBMUD does not use groundwater from the East Bay Plain Subbasin for municipal water supply, water use during operation of the proposed project would not affect groundwater. Additionally, on-site groundwater extraction during operation would not occur. Therefore, no depletion of the underlying aquifer would occur during the operational phase of the proposed project. For the reasons listed above, impacts related to the decrease of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would not occur. c) Would the project 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 off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; (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? Erosion or Siltation. The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or a river. Site preparation and grading/excavation activities may slightly and temporarily alter on-site drainage; however, the existing drainage patterns would generally be maintained and would not be substantially altered or modified. During construction, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions.

Compliance with COA: Stormwater Requirements and implementation of Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs would reduce impacts related to erosion and siltation.

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 impervious surfaces would not be prone to on-site erosion or siltation because no soil would be included in these areas. The remaining portion of the site would consist of pervious surface area, which would contain landscaping that would minimize on-site erosion and siltation by stabilizing the soil. Therefore, on-site erosion and siltation impacts would be minimal. Additionally, compliance with 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 and siltation impacts would not occur.

Flooding. As indicated above, the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river.

However, the project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the project site, which, without compliance with regulatory requirements, has the potential to increase the volume and rate of stormwater runoff discharged from the project site. The proposed project would convey stormwater runoff to proposed vegetated areas on the project site and would be treated by flow- through planters (biotreatment) before connecting off site to the City’s existing off-site storm drain

54 East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2021. Water Supply. Website: www.ebmud.com/water/about-your- water/water-supply (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) 4-62
system within Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street. The City of Berkeley Public Works Department would review the drainage plans to ensure they comply with City standards and to verify that the project would not increase downstream flooding.

Storm Drain Capacity. As described above, stormwater runoff from the project site would discharge to existing storm drain infrastructure in the vicinity of the project site. Coordination with the Berkeley Public Works Department in review of the project drainage plans and compliance with existing requirements would ensure that impacts related to exceedance of storm drain capacity would not occur.

As described above in Section 4.10.a, the proposed project would comply with all applicable NPDES regulations and City COAs, including the MRP. Construction and operational BMPs would be implemented to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff from the project site.

Additionally, groundwater dewatering, if required, would comply with the requirements of the City’s TMD to ensure that dewatering activities do not introduce pollutants into surface waters.

Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that potential impacts related to additional sources of polluted runoff would not occur.

Flood Flows. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06001C0019G,55 the project site is within Zone X, Areas of Minimal Flood Hazard, and is not located within a 100-year floodplain.

Project construction would comply with the requirements of COA: Stormwater Requirements and would include the implementation of construction BMPs, including site design and source control measures to control the rate and amount of on-site surface runoff and to direct flows to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction site does not result in on- or off-site flooding. Compliance with COA: Stormwater Requirements would ensure that construction impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding and impede or redirect flood waters would not occur.

As previously discussed, development of the proposed project would not result in a net increase in impervious surface area at the project site, which would not alter the rate and volume of stormwater runoff at the project site from existing conditions. In addition, as discussed above, the project site is not mapped within a 100-year floodplain and therefore would not impede or redirect flood flows. Additionally, compliance with the MRP would ensure that operational activities would not result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff or impede or redirect flood flows in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding, and impacts would not occur. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
As discussed above, the project site is not within a 100-year flood zone; therefore, there is no risk of pollutants from the project site due to project inundation.

55 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06001C0019G. August 3. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery= 2942%20college%20avenue%2C%20berkeley (accessed March 2025).

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

4-63
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 project site is approximately 2.2 miles east of San Francisco Bay and approximately 14 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Based on the distance from the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean, the project site would not be susceptible to inundation from a tsunami.

Seiches are oscillations in enclosed bodies of water that are caused by a number of factors, most often wind or seismic activity. The nearest major water feature is Aquatic Park, which is located approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site. Given the distance of the nearest large standing body of water from the project site, there is a minimal risk of a release of pollutants from the project site due to seiche‐related flooding.

Because the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone and is located a substantial distance from the San Francisco Bay, Pacific Ocean, and nearest body of water, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche risking release of pollutants due to project site inundation.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project site is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The RWQCB adopted a Basin Plan56 that designates beneficial uses for all surface and groundwater within its jurisdiction and establishes the water quality objectives and standards necessary to protect those beneficial uses. As discussed in detail above in Section 4.10.a, the proposed project would comply with existing NPDES requirements and would implement construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. Additionally, during construction, any dewatered groundwater would comply with the requirements of the TMD. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not degrade or alter water quality, cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives, or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, the proposed project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the RWQCB Basin Plan. Construction and operational impacts related to a conflict with the Basin Plan would not occur.

The SGMA, which was enacted in September 2014, requires governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft of groundwater basins. The SGMA requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies, which are required to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans to manage the sustainability of the groundwater basins. The project site is located within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, East Bay Plain Subbasin, which is managed by EBMUD. The East Bay Plain Subbasin is identified by the California Department of Water

56 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2023. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin, amendments adopted up through March 7, 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) 4-64
Resources (DWR) as a medium priority basin57 and is therefore subject to the requirements of SGMA, and has prepared a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).58 As previously discussed, required compliance with existing regulations (including the NPDES permit requirements, the MRP, and City COAs) would ensure the protection of groundwater and surface water quality during construction and operation of the project and that the proposed project would not result in impacts to surface water and groundwater quality that could result in conflicts with the GSP for the East Bay Plain Subbasin.

In addition, as described above, operation of the proposed project would not involve the use of groundwater for water supply, and groundwater dewatering activities and alteration of impervious surfaces under the project would result in no impacts related to groundwater recharge or groundwater supplies. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan or the GSP for the East Bay Plain Subbasin.

4.10.3 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 hydrology and water quality. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality 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.

57 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). n.d. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Website:
gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final (accessed March 2025). 58 East Bay Municipal Utility District GSA and City of Hayward GSA. 2022. East Bay Plan Subbasin, Groundwater Sustainability Plan. January.

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

4-65
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)

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

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. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

4.11.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.10 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to land use and planning. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to land use and planning would either be less than significant, or no impact would occur. No mitigation was prescribed. The Housing Element EIR determined that because the Housing Element includes policies and programs to encourage housing development on underutilized and vacant sites and along established commercial corridors and neighborhoods, development facilitated by the Housing Element would not physically divide an established community. In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that implementation of the Housing Element would be consistent with the goals and policies of Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, and the BMC.

4.11.2 Project Impacts
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The project site is located in an urbanized area of the city and is generally 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. Redevelopment of the project site with the proposed mixed-use residential building would represent a general continuation of the type, scale, and intensity of development within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, the proposed project would not include any modifications to the existing roadways in the vicinity of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project site has a General Plan designation of Neighborhood Commercial and is located within three zoning districts. Approximately 19,788 square feet of the project site is in the North Shattuck Commercial (C-NS) zone, approximately 1,970 square feet is in the Multiple-Family Residential (R-4) zone, and approximately 584 square feet is in the Restricted Multiple-Family Residential (R-2A) zone. The project site has also been identified as an Opportunity Site for residential development in the City’s Housing Element.

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) 4-66
The proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies and the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan land use designation for the project site, which provides for pedestrian-oriented, neighborhood-serving commercial development, and multi-family residential structures similar to the proposed project. Development standards for the C-E zoning district are specified in the 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. 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. The proposed project would be consistent with the purposes of these zoning districts and, pursuant to the BMC, would be consistent with the development standards of these zoning districts with approval of the following permits:
• 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 • 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
These permits would allow an increase in building height, lot coverage, and building footprint, as well as setback waivers in order to accommodate the density bonus units. The City’s Zoning Adjustments Board would consider granting the requested Administrative Use Permits, Use Permits, and other permits as it reviews the proposed project. With approval of the above permits, the proposed project would be consistent with the BMC.

Although the proposed project would develop the project site with a greater residential density than detailed in the C-NS, R-4, and R-2A zoning districts, the proposed project would be consistent with the criteria of the State Density Bonus Law by providing nine affordable to very low-income units (15 percent) and nine affordable to moderate income units (15 percent), as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.

In addition, because the proposed project would develop residential uses on the project site, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Housing Element, which identifies the project site as an Opportunity Site.

The proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-67
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) environmental effect, and the proposed project would have no impact, either individually or cumulatively, related to land use and planning.

4.11.3 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 land use and planning. Impacts related to land use and planning 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) 4-68

4.12 MINERAL 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. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

4.12.1 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 therefore were not analyzed in further detail in the Housing Element EIR, including mineral resources. The Housing Element EIR states that the city does not have any significant mineral resources or active mining sites within its boundaries, and that implementation of the Housing Element only applies to an urban area that is not compatible with, identified for, or used for mineral extraction. Therefore, the Housing Element EIR determined that development facilitated by the Housing Element would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the State or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan or other land use plan.

4.12.2 Project Impacts
The project site is located within an urban area on an infill site. There are no known mineral resources within or in the vicinity of the project site.59 As such, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State or any locally important mineral resource recovery site, and no impact, either individually or cumulatively, related to the loss of mineral resources would occur.

4.12.3 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 mineral resources. Impacts on mineral 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.

59 Berkeley, City of. 2001a. City of Berkeley General Plan.

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

4-69
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)

4.13 NOISE

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 result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

4.13.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.11 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to noise. The Housing Element EIR determined that potential impacts related to operation noise, vibration, and airport noise would be less than significant; however, impacts related to construction noise were determined to be significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation was identified or prescribed.

The Housing Element EIR also identified a cumulatively considerable impact related to construction noise.

The Housing Element EIR determined that although future housing development accommodated by the Housing Element could include mechanical equipment (i.e., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC]), delivery and trash trucks, and other noise-generating activities, these activities would be similar to the existing noise environment. In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that the increase in mobile noise would not result in a perceptible (3 A-weighted decibels [dBA] or greater) increase, and on-site activities would be required to comply with applicable noise standards in the BMC. Further, the Housing Element EIR determined that future development accommodated by the Housing Element would not involve operational activities that would result in substantial vibration levels (e.g., use of heavy equipment or machinery) and construction activities would be required to implement City COAs that address vibration. The Housing Element EIR also indicated that future development would not be located in the vicinity of an airport and would therefore not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

However, the Housing Element EIR determined that while construction associated with future development facilitated by the Housing Element would be required to comply with the allowed daytime construction hours as set forth in the BMC and therefore would not occur during nighttime hours when people are more sensitive to noise, larger developments could involve construction with lengthy durations, substantial soil movement, use of large, heavy-duty equipment, and/or pile 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) 4-70
driving near noise-sensitive land uses that would exceed the applicable Federal Transit Authority (FTA) daytime noise limits. Although implementation of City COAs for construction noise would reduce construction noise levels, the Housing Element EIR concluded that implementation of City COAs may not reduce such noise levels to below significance thresholds for every project. Therefore, impacts generated by temporary construction noise were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

4.13.2 Project Impacts
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound and consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound.

Sound levels measured in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud.

Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted decibel sound level. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.

As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), and the day-night average noise level (Ldn) based on dBA.

CNEL is the time-varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.

A project would have a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Berkeley.

Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these land uses include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. The Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-71
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) project site is surrounded by a mix of uses within an urban area of the city. The project site is located within the Elmwood neighborhood within the city, which is characterized by a mix of commercial and residential uses. The project site is less than 10 feet from the closest noise-sensitive receptors (residential uses) located west of the project boundary.

The City of Berkeley General Plan addresses excessive noise in the Environmental Management Element.60 Major noise sources in Berkeley include transportation, industrial plant noise, and activities associated with neighborhoods. The General Plan includes a map of the existing noise levels throughout the City. According to the General Plan, the project site is exposed to noise levels reaching 70 dBA Ldn. The General Plan also provides policies and actions to protect the community from excessive noise levels. Policies and actions applicable to the proposed project include the following:
• Policy EM-43: Noise Reduction. Reduce significant noise levels and minimize sources of noise. • Policy EM-44: Noise Prevention and Elimination. Protect public health and welfare by eliminating existing noise problems where feasible and by preventing significant future degradation of the acoustic environment.
• Policy EM-45: Traffic Noise. Work with local and regional agencies to reduce local and regional traffic, which is the single largest source of unacceptable noise in the city. • Policy EM-46: Noise Mitigation. Require operational limitations and all feasible noise buffering for new uses that generate significant noise impacts near residential, institutional, or recreational uses.
• Policy EM-47: Land Use Compatibility. Ensure that noise-sensitive uses, including, but not limited to, residents, child-care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes, are protected from detrimental noise levels.
○ Action EM-47-A: Noise-sensitive development proposals should be reviewed with respect to the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines below (see Table 4.13.A).

If the noise level is within the “normally acceptable” level, noise exposure would be acceptable for the intended land use. Development may occur without requiring an evaluation of the noise environment unless the use could generate noise impacts on adjacent uses.

If the noise level is within the “conditionally acceptable” level, noise exposure would be conditionally acceptable; a specified land use may be permitted only after a detailed analysis of the noise environment and the project characteristics is conducted to determine whether noise insulation or protection features are required. Such noise insulation features may include measures to protect noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas (e.g., at residences, schools, or parks) or may include building sound insulation treatments such as sound-rated windows to protect interior spaces in sensitive receptors.

60 Berkeley, City of. 2001a. City of Berkeley General Plan.

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) 4-72
Table 4.13.A: General Plan Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Category Exterior Noise Exposure (Ldn)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential, Hotels, and Motels

Outdoor Sports and Recreation,
Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds

Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals,
Personal Care, Meeting Halls, Churches

Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters

NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE: Specific land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features have been incorporated.

UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken unless all feasible noise mitigation options have been analyzed and appropriate mitigations incorporated into the project to reduce exposure of people to unacceptable noise levels.

Source: General Plan (City of Berkeley 2001b).

If the noise level is within the “normally unacceptable” level, analysis and mitigation are required.

Development should generally not be undertaken unless adequate noise mitigation options have been analyzed and appropriate mitigations incorporated into the project to reduce the exposure of people to unacceptable noise levels.

If the noise level is within the “clearly unacceptable” level, new construction or development should not be undertaken unless all feasible noise mitigation options have been analyzed and appropriate mitigations incorporated into the project to reduce exposure of people to unacceptable noise levels.

The City has also established standard COAs for all development projects, which are provided in Section 7.0 of this document and are identified below, as applicable.

BMC Title 13: Public Peace, Morals and Welfare, Chapter 13.40 (Community Noise) addresses noise impacts. The ordinance establishes exterior and interior noise standards at receiving land uses and construction activity noise regulations as included below in Table 4.13.B.

The City’s exterior and interior noise limits are shown in Table 4.13.B. The hourly noise level standards vary based on the receiving land use type and the time period. In order to assess intermittent or maximum noise levels, the time-weighted noise level additions presented in BMC Section 13.40.050 and described in further detail below, should be applied.

The maximum noise levels vary based on the receiving land use type and the time period. The ordinance also limits noise generated by construction. The ordinance restricts construction activities to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and on weekdays and holidays between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., except for emergency work.

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

4-73
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 4.13.B: Exterior and Interior Noise Limits,
BMC Section 13.40.050
Zoning District1 Time Period Noise Level
(dBA)
Exterior Noise Limits
R-1, R-2, R-1A, R-2A, and ES-R 7:00 AM–10:00 PM
10:00 PM–7:00 AM
55 45
R-3 and above 7:00 AM–10:00 PM
10:00 PM–7:00 AM
60 55
Commercial 7:00 AM–10:00 PM
10:00 PM–7:00 AM
65 60
Industry Anytime 70
Interior Noise Limits
All 7:00 AM–10:00 PM
10:00 PM–7:00 AM
45 40
Source: Municipal Code Tables 13.40-1 and 13.40-2 (City of Berkeley 2014). 1 R-1 = Single-Family Residential
R-2 = Restricted Two-Family Residential
R-1A = Limited Two-Family Residential
R-2A = Restricted Multiple-Family Residential
ES-R = Environmental Safety-Residential
R-3 = Multiple-Family Residential
dBA = A-weighted decibels

The following noise standards are outlined in BMC Chapter 13.40.050:

A. Maximum permissible sound levels shall be determined by the zoning district of the property subject to the noise, not the property from which the noise originates.

1. The noise standards for the various categories of land use in Table 6 [of BMC Chapter 13.40.050 and shown in Table 4.13.B of the Initial Study Checklist] shall, unless otherwise specifically indicated in other codes, apply to all such property within a designated zone.

2. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the incorporated City or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the sound level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The noise standard for that land use as specified in Table 6 [Table 4.13.B of the Initial Study] for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; or b. The noise standard for that land use as specified in Table 6 [Table 4.13.B of the Initial Study] plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; or
c. The noise standard for that land use as specified in Table 6 [Table 4.13.B of the Initial Study] plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; or
d. The noise standard for that land use as specified in Table 6 [Table 4.13.B of the Initial Study] plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or
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) 4-74
e. The noise standard for that land use as specified in Table 6 [Table 4.13.B of the Initial Study] plus 20 dBA for any period of time.

The following interior noise standards are outlined in BMC Section 13.40.060:
1) No person shall operate or cause to be operated within a multi-family dwelling unit any source of sound or allow the creation of any noise which causes the sound level when measured inside a neighboring dwelling unit to exceed:
a. The noise standard as specified in Table 6 [Table 4.13.B of the Initial Study] for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; or b. The noise standard as specified in Table 6 [Table 4.13.B of the Initial Study] plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or c. The noise standard as specified in Table 6 [Table 4.13.B of the Initial Study] plus 10 dBA for any period of time.

Section 13.40.070 of the BMC restricts construction activities to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and on weekends and holidays between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., except for emergency work. Construction activities are divided into two categories: mobile equipment and stationary equipment. Mobile equipment, as defined by BMC Section 13.40.070, includes sound levels for the nonscheduled, intermittent, short-term operation for less than 10 days of jackhammers, drills, saws, sander grinder, and similar tools. Stationary equipment, according to BMC Section 13.40.070, would be repetitively scheduled and in relatively long-term operation for longer than 10 days. Equipment used during construction of the proposed project would be considered stationary because construction would last longer than 10 days. Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner that maximum sound levels at affected properties will not exceed those listed in Table 4.13.C below.

Table 4.13.C: Maximum Stationary Equipment Construction Noise Levels (dBA), Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.40.070
R-1, R-2
Residential
R-3 and above Multi-
Family Residential
Commercial/
Industrial
Weekdays 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM 60 65 70
Weekends 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM and legal holidays 50 55 60 Source: Municipal Code Table 13.40-4 (City of Berkeley 2014).

R-1 = Single-Family Residential
R-2 = Restricted Two-Family Residential
R-3 = Multiple-Family Residential

a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The following describes how the short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts of the proposed project would not exceed established thresholds, according to the standards set forth above.

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

4-75
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) Short-Term (Construction) Noise Impacts. The closest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site (approximately 40 feet). Project construction would result in short-term noise that could affect these receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from 1 day to several days depending on the phase of construction. The entire construction duration is expected to occur over approximately 21 months.

The level and types of noise that would occur during construction are described below.

Short-term noise would occur during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Table 4.13.D lists typical construction equipment noise levels (Lmax or maximum instantaneous sound level) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor (obtained from the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] Roadway Construction Noise Model). Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed.

Table 4.13.D: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1 Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Pick-up Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Welder 40 73
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006).

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.

Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level

Two types of short-term noise could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and 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) 4-76
materials to the site, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As shown in Table 4.13.D, there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 feet.

The second type of short-term noise is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and construction on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Table 4.13.D lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical maximum noise levels range up to 87 dBA Lmax of 85 dBA Leq at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, including excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

As identified above, the project site is approximately 40 feet from the closest noise-sensitive receptors (residential uses) located east of the project site boundary. The 40-foot distance would increase the noise level by a minimal amount compared to the noise level measured at 50 feet from the construction activity. Therefore, the closest off-site residences may be subject to short-term construction noise levels of approximately 85 dBA Leq when construction is occurring at the eastern project site boundary.

According to the City’s Noise Ordinance (BMC Section 13.40.070), noise from construction activities is permitted to exceed the established maximum allowable noise performance standards, provided the activities occur during the permissible hours for construction and all technically and economically feasible noise reduction measures are incorporated. Construction impacts at residential land uses, although permitted and exempted during the construction hours specified by the City, would exceed the suggested maximum noise levels for stationary sources as established by the City.

Implementation of COA: Construction Noise Reduction Program would reduce construction noise impacts on the off-site nearby sensitive receptors and would require the project sponsor to implement all technically and economically feasible measures to reduce construction noise, consistent with the requirements of BMC Section 13.40.070.

COA: Construction Noise Reduction Program.The applicant shall develop a site-specific noise reduction program prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to reduce construction noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible, subject to review and approval of the Zoning Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-77
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) Officer. The noise reduction program shall include the time limits for construction listed above, as measures needed to ensure that construction complies with BMC Section

13.40.070. The noise reduction program should include, but shall not be limited to, the following available controls to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical:
• Construction equipment should be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. Select hydraulically or electrically powered equipment and avoid pneumatically powered equipment where feasible.
• Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when adjoining construction sites. Construct temporary noise barriers or partial enclosures to acoustically shield such equipment where feasible. • Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • If impact pile driving is required, pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.
• Construct solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to operational business, residences or other noise-sensitive land uses where the noise control plan analysis determines that a barrier would be effective at reducing noise. • Erect temporary noise control blanket barriers, if necessary, along building facades facing construction sites. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected.
• Route construction related traffic along major roadways and away from sensitive receptors where feasible.

COA: Construction Noise Management – Public Notice Required.At least two weeks prior to initiating any construction activities at the site, the applicant shall provide notice to businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site. This notice shall at a minimum provide the following: (1) project description, (2) description of construction activities during extended work hours and reason for extended hours, (3) daily construction schedule (i.e., time of day) and expected duration (number of months), (4) the name and phone number of the Project Liaison for the project that is responsible for responding to any local complaints, and (5) that construction work is about to commence. The liaison would determine the cause of all construction-related complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, worker parking, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the City for review and approval.

COA: Construction Phases.The applicant shall provide the Zoning Officer with a schedule of major construction phases with start dates and expected duration, a description of the activities and anticipated noise levels of each phase, and the name(s) and phone number(s) of the individual(s) directly supervising each phase. The Zoning Officer or his/her designee shall have the authority to require an onsite meeting with these individuals as necessary to 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) 4-78
ensure compliance with these conditions. The applicant shall notify the Zoning Officer of any changes to this schedule as soon as possible.

COA: Construction Hours.Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.

COA: Construction Hours – Exceptions.It is recognized that certain construction activities, such as the placement of concrete, must be performed in a continuous manner and may require an extension of these work hours. Prior to initiating any activity that might require a longer period, the developer must notify the Zoning Officer and request an exception for a finite period of time. If the Zoning Officer approves the request, then two weeks prior to the expanded schedule, the developer shall notify businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site describing the expanded construction hours. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the City for review and approval. The project shall not be allowed more than 15 extended working days.

COA: Project Construction Website.The applicant shall establish a project construction website with the following information clearly accessible and updated monthly or more frequently as changes warrant:
• Contact information (i.e., "hotline" phone number, and email address) for the project construction manager.
• Calendar and schedule of daily/weekly/monthly construction activities. • The final Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Transportation Construction Plan, Construction Noise Reduction Program, and any other reports or programs related to construction noise, air quality, and traffic.

Implementation of the City’s standard COAs would reduce construction noise impacts to the extent feasible, as required by BMC Section 13.40.070. With implementation of the City’s standard COAs, construction noise impacts would be reduced and no impact would occur.

Operational Noise Impacts. The proposed project would result in no impacts related to both traffic and stationary noise sources, as discussed below.
• Traffic Noise Impacts: Off-site traffic noise impacts would result in a significant impact if traffic noise levels increase by 4 dBA or more over ambient noise levels without the project. As discussed in Section 4.16, Transportation, the proposed project would generate a net increase of 436 daily trips. According to the City’s General Plan, the current traffic volume of Shattuck Avenue over a 24-hour period is between 22,300 and 36,400 vehicles. A net increase of 436 daily trips would increase traffic noise by less than 1 dBA. This is below 4 dBA; therefore, there would be no impact.
• Stationary Source Noise Impacts: Stationary noise sources associated with the proposed project could include HVAC mechanical equipment and typical motor vehicle/parking area activities. As described above, the City establishes the acceptable daytime and nighttime maximum noise levels at receiving land uses. Daytime is considered to be between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-79
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) 10:00 p.m., and nighttime hours are between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. BMC Section 13.40 establishes interior and exterior noise level standards (as measured at receiving sensitive land uses) not to be exceeded for more than 30 minutes any hour on commercial land uses as 60 dBA during nighttime hours and 65 dBA during daytime hours, and on residential land uses as 45 dBA during nighttime hours and 55 dBA during daytime hours. It is not expected that the proposed project would substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions and there would be no impact.

Based on the analysis above, the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. As the vibration propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the building, the vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible vibration from the rattling of windows or a rumbling noise. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. When assessing annoyance from groundborne noise, vibration is typically expressed as root-mean-square (RMS) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro-inch per second. To distinguish vibration velocity levels from noise levels, the unit is written as “VdB.” Human perception to vibration in indoor environments starts at levels as low as 67 VdB and sometimes lower. Annoyance due to vibration in residential settings starts at 70 VdB. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. Although the motion of the ground may be perceived, without the effects associated with the shaking of the building, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human reaction.

In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Common sources of groundborne vibration include trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy earthmoving equipment.

Construction and operation of the proposed project could expose sensitive structures and residential receptors to excessive groundborne vibration, as discussed below.

Construction Vibration. Construction activities that would occur at the project site have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The project would require demolition of the existing structures on the project site, as well as site clearing and grading activities. These activities would occur approximately 40 feet from existing sensitive residential uses. No impact pile driving would occur as part of the proposed project.

For all other equipment associated with the proposed construction activities, vibration impacts would approach 0.089 inch per second at a distance of 25 feet. This level would not exceed the 0.12 inch per second threshold at which there is virtually no risk resulting in architectural damage to buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage. It would be structurally safe from 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) 4-80
the construction activity and equipment operation for these adjacent buildings, and no structural damages would occur as a result of on-site construction. In addition, the following COA requires an analysis of potential damage due to construction prior to, or concurrent with, a demolition building permit.

COA: Damage Due to Construction Vibration.The project applicant shall submit screening level analysis prior to, or concurrent with demolition building permit. If a screening level analysis shows that the project has the potential to result in damage to structures, a structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall be retained to prepare a vibration impact assessment (assessment). The assessment shall take into account project specific information such as the composition of the structures, location of the various types of equipment used during each phase of the project, as well as the soil characteristics in the project area, in order to determine whether project construction may cause damage to any of the structures identified as potentially impacted in the screening level analysis. If the assessment finds that the project may cause damage to nearby structures, the structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall recommend design means and methods of construction that to avoid the potential damage, if feasible. The assessment and its recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety Division and the Zoning Officer. If there are no feasible design means or methods to eliminate the potential for damage, the structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall undertake an existing conditions study (study) of any structures (or, in case of large buildings, of the portions of the structures) that may experience damage. This study shall:
• Establish the baseline condition of these structures, including, but not limited to, the location and extent of any visible cracks or spalls; and • Include written descriptions and photographs.

With implementation of COA: Damage Due to Construction Vibration, construction of the proposed project would not result in substantial groundborne vibration on properties adjacent to the project site.

Operational Vibration. No permanent noise sources that would expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels would be located within the project site. In addition, long- term operational activities associated with the proposed project would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration.

Based on the analysis above, the proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The airport nearest to the project site is the Oakland International Airport (over 10 miles southwest of the project site). The nearest private airport, Buchanan Field Airport, is located over 14 miles northeast of the site. Although aircraft-related noise is occasionally audible on the project site, the project site does not lie within an airport land use plan area or within the 60 dBA Ldn noise contours of any of these public airports or private airfields. The proposed project would not expose people Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-81
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) residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport.

4.13.3 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 noise. Impacts related to operational noise would remain less than significant, and impacts related to construction noise would remain significant and unavoidable as identified in the Housing Element EIR. Because the proposed project would result in less than significant noise impacts, the proposed project would not contribute to, exacerbate, or increase the significant unavoidable construction noise impacts 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) 4-82

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

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. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

4.14.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.12 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to population and housing. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant, and no mitigation was prescribed. The Housing Element EIR analyzed the full buildout of 19,098 residential units in the city through 2031, which would result in a population increase of 47,443 residents compared to the existing population. However, the Housing Element EIR concluded that the growth resulting from implementation of the Housing Element is anticipated and would not constitute substantial unplanned population growth. In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that implementation of the Housing Element would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing because future development under the Housing Element would facilitate the development of new housing in accordance with State and local housing requirements, while preserving existing residential neighborhoods.

4.14.2 Project Impacts
a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The project site is currently developed with a two-story commercial building and does not contain any residential units. The proposed project would result in the development of an eight-story, mixed-use residential building containing approximately 690 square feet of commercial space and a total of 110 dwelling units on the project site. As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in employees and residents at the project site.

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

4-83
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) Based on the average employment density for retail uses of 250 square feet per worker,61,62 the proposed approximately 690 square feet of commercial space would result in approximately three new employees. Based on a 2.37 persons per household estimate for the City of Berkeley obtained from the United States Census Bureau, development of the 110 new residential units is estimated to result in a total population of up to approximately 261 residents on the project site.63 Because the Housing Element EIR identified the project site as an Opportunity Site for residential development, the population increase at the project site has already been considered and analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As of July 1, 2023, the population in the city was estimated at 118,962.64 Therefore, implementation of the proposed project represents approximately 0.2 percent of the City’s total population.65 In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that buildout under the House Element would result in an increase in approximately 47,443 residents. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project represents approximately 0.5 percent of the population increase anticipated by the Housing Element EIR. Overall, implementation of the proposed project would not directly induce substantial population growth in the area, and the project is anticipated to serve the City’s need for more housing units.

The proposed project is located on an infill site in a mixed-use area and therefore is an appropriate location for new housing. The project does not include construction of additional public infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities); therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area.

The three future employees associated with the proposed commercial space represent a minimal increase and are expected to come from the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth on the site or in the surrounding area through the increase in employment on the site.

As such, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, beyond what was anticipated in the Housing Element and no impact would occur.

61 The number of employees associated with the proposed project was determined based on data available from Envision 2040, 4-Year Review, Market Overview and Employment Lands Analysis prepared for the City of San Jose and dated January 28, 2016. Based on the available data, an employment density factor for retail land uses is between 250 and 650 square feet per employee. In order to provide a conservative analysis, the employment density factor of 250 square feet per employee was used to estimate employment generated from the proposed project.
62 Strategic Economics. 2016. Envision 2040, 4-Year Review, Market Overview and Employment Lands Analysis. January 28.
63 United States Census Bureau. City of Berkeley, QuickFacts, Persons per household, 2018-2022. Website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/berkeleycitycalifornia/PST045222 (accessed March 2025).

2.37 persons per household * 110 units = 260.7 (rounded to 261). 64 Ibid.
65 261 residents / 118,962 total population = 0.00219.

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) 4-84
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is currently developed with a two-story commercial building and does not contain any residential units. As such, demolition of existing structures and construction of the proposed project would not displace any people or housing, and there would be no impact.

4.14.3 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 population and housing. Impacts related to population and housing 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

4-85
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)

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

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 substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
b. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

c. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

4.15.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.13 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to public services and recreation. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to public services and recreation would be less than significant, and no mitigation was prescribed. The Housing Element determined that future development facilitated by the Housing Element would increase demand on fire protection services, police protection services, schools, and parks and recreational facilities.

However, compliance with General Plan policies related to fire and police service facilities, compliance with Government Code 65995 (b), which requires funding for the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset impacts from new residential development, and the donation of parkland pursuant to the Quimby Act would reduce impacts to less than significant.

4.15.2 Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (i) fire protection; (ii) police protection; (iii) schools; (iv) parks; or (v) other public facilities?
Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in the population on the project site (approximately 261 new residents and three new employees as discussed in Section 4.14, 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) 4-86
Population and Housing), which would increase the demand on emergency fire services, police protection services, schools, parks, and other public facilities. However, because the increase in population at the project site would be consistent with the population growth anticipated as part of the City’s Housing Element and future residents/employees are expected to come from the surrounding Berkeley area, the proposed project itself would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities or a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of additional public services.

In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access, including the Uniform Fire Code and applicable sections of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Codes, Title 19, Public Safety and Title 24, Building Standards, and additional review by the Berkeley Fire Department to ensure that appropriate measures are implemented to reduce hazardous conditions at the site and provide for adequate emergency access. Further, the proposed project would be required to pay the Berkeley Unified School District’s required school impact fees for new commercial and residential development prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the funds from which would be directed towards maintaining adequate service levels.
b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
As discussed above, development of the proposed project would result in an increase in the population on the project site (approximately 261 new residents and three new employees as discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing), which would increase the demand on existing parks in the vicinity of the project site. However, because the increase in population at the project site would be consistent with the population growth anticipated as part of the City’s Housing Element and future residents/employees are expected to come from the surrounding Berkeley area, the proposed project itself would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing parks. c) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project does not include the construction of new recreational facilities. In addition, as discussed above, because the increase in population at the project site would be consistent with the population growth anticipated as part of the City’s Housing Element and future residents/employees are expected to come from the surrounding Berkeley area, the proposed project itself would not require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities in the city.

4.15.3 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 public services and recreation. Impacts related to public services and recreation would remain less than significant as identified in the Housing Element EIR. No further Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-87
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) 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) 4-88

4.16 TRANSPORTATION

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 a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

4.16.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.14 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to transportation. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to transportation would be less than significant, and no mitigation was prescribed. The Housing Element EIR determined that the Housing Element would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities because individual projects facilitated by the Housing Element would be designed to be consistent with applicable programs, plans, and policies related to the circulation system, including the City’s General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, Complete Streets Policy, and Pedestrian Plan. In addition, the Housing Element determined that future development under the Housing Element would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) because implementation of the Housing Element would result in an overall decrease in VMT per capita in comparison to the baseline condition.

The Housing Element EIR also determined that future development facilitated by the Housing Element would not substantially increase hazards because of a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) and would not result in inadequate emergency access because circulation components and geometric design features of individual projects facilitated by the Housing Element would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division and would be designed to be in accordance with all applicable City standards and the building plan check process to minimize design hazards.

4.16.2 Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The following includes an evaluation of the proposed project’s potential to conflict with applicable programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system, including the City’s Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

4-89
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) Transportation Strategic Plan.66 The section begins with a description of the proposed project’s trip generating potential, compared to existing conditions, followed by an analysis of potential impacts to transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway facilities.

Trip Generation. Trip generation is the process of estimating the number of vehicles that would likely access the project site. Trip generation data for the proposed project was estimated using the data and methodology published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition for Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) and Strip Retail Plaza.

Table 4.16.A summarizes the trip generation for the proposed project based on the ITE methodology. As shown in Table 4.16.A, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate a net increase of approximately 310 daily trips, including 26 AM peak-hour and 6 PM peak-hour trips.

Table 4.16.A: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Size Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates1
Multi-family Housing du 4.75 0.12 0.20 0.32 0.19 0.10 0.29 Strip Retail Plaza tsf 54.45 1.42 0.94 2.36 3.30 3.29 6.59 Project Trip Generation
Multi-family Housing 110 du 523 13 22 35 21 11 32
Strip Retail Plaza 0.690 tsf 38 1 1 2 2 2 4
Total 561 14 23 37 23 13 36
Existing Trip Generation
Strip Retail Plaza 4.604 tsf 251 7 4 11 15 15 30
Net Trips (Project – Existing) 310 7 19 26 8 (2) 6
Source: Compiled by LSA (2025).
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (ITE 2021).

Land Use 220 – Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) – Between 4 and 10 Levels – Close to Rail Transit Land Use 822 – Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) – Less than 40,000 square feet of gross leasable area du = dwelling unit
tsf = thousand square feet

Transit Facilities. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to transit facilities if it would conflict with the goals and policies related to transit use in the Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan, which was adopted in 2016.67 In particular, the proposed project would result in a conflict if it would discourage people from using transit or decrease transit efficiency.

Transit in the project vicinity includes the extensive bus transit service provided by AC Transit. The proposed project is located within close proximity to a variety of transit services, which would encourage the use of these services. The project site is located 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 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

66 Berkeley, City of. 2016a. Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan. June. 67 Ibid.

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) 4-90
Solano Avenue and Colusa Street to the Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco.68 These lines provide service at a frequency of less than 15 minutes during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. In addition, the Downtown Berkeley BART station is located approximately 0.45 mile south of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project is expected to increase the use of transit services in the project area. However, future residents and employees at the project site are expected to come from the surrounding Berkeley area and likely already utilize transit service. Therefore, this minimal increase would not have a substantial effect on the efficiency of the AC Transit bus service.

Bicycle Facilities. The proposed project would have a significant impact to bicycle facilities if it conflicted with the goals and policies related to bicycle use in the Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan. In particular, the proposed project would result in a conflict if it would impair the implementation of any planned bicycle boulevards, result in street design that would be unsafe for bicyclists, or discourage bicycle use in the vicinity of the project site.

Bicycle access to the proposed project is provided through the City’s bicycle network. The City’s Bicycle Plan identifies Shattuck Avenue as a planned cycletrack (Class 4 bike path) and Virginia Street as a bicycle boulevard. The proposed project would provide a total of 97 secure bicycle parking spaces for the proposed residential uses, 59 of which would be in a covered bike storage area in the northeast corner of the project site. The proposed project would not modify any surrounding roadways and would not prevent the implementation of the planned cycletrack along Shattuck Avenue or other bicycle boulevards in the city. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to bicycle facilities.

Pedestrian Facilities. The proposed project would have a significant impact to pedestrian facilities if it would conflict with the goals and policies related to bicycle use in the Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan. In particular, the proposed project would result in a conflict if it would discourage walking in commercial districts, result in street design that would be unsafe for pedestrians, or discourage walking in the vicinity of the project site.

The project site is served by existing sidewalks along Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street.

Pedestrians would access the project site from both Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street, and the anticipated new pedestrian trips generated by the proposed project would be accommodated on the existing facilities serving the project site. In addition, the existing pedestrian facilities would be maintained, and the proposed curb ramp and crossing would be constructed pursuant to City standards.69 Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to pedestrian safety or facilities.

Roadways. Pursuant to SB 743, described in Section 4.16.b, LOS or other measures of automobile delay can no longer be used to identify significant impacts under CEQA. Therefore, the following summary of the proposed project’s effects on roadway operations is provided for informational purposes only.

68 Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit. 2024. Maps & Schedules. Website: https://www.actransit.org/ maps-schedules (accessed March 2025).
69 Berkeley, City of. 2024. City of Berkeley Standard Details, Streets and Sidewalks. May 10.

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

4-91
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) Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided by I-80 and I-580 via University Avenue.

Local access is provided primarily via Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street. Shattuck Avenue is designated as a Major Street70 in the City’s General Plan. There are no proposed changes to existing public roadways or transportation-related infrastructure. Therefore, and due to the relatively small nature of the proposed project and the minimal increase in trips to and from the project site with implementation of the proposed project, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts on surrounding roadway facilities.

Based on the analysis above, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process that changed the way transportation impact analysis is conducted as part of CEQA compliance. These changes included elimination of automobile delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. According to SB 743, these changes are intended to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with Statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” In December 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, now called the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), completed an update to the State CEQA Guidelines to implement the requirements of SB 743. The State CEQA Guidelines state that VMT must be the metric used to determine significant transportation impacts and require all lead agencies in California to use VMT- based thresholds of significance in CEQA documents published after July 1, 2020.

The OPR Guidelines recommend developing screening criteria for development projects that meet certain criteria that can readily lead to the conclusion that they would not cause a significant impact on VMT. The OPR Guidelines also recommend evaluating VMT impacts using an efficiency-based version of the metric, such as VMT per resident for residential developments and/or VMT per worker for office or other employment-based developments. The City of Berkeley uses the metric of home-work VMT per worker for evaluating the impacts of employment-based uses such as the proposed project. The home-work VMT per worker measures all of the driving commute trips between homes and workplaces and divides that total distance by the number of workers at the site. Based on the City of Berkeley’s guidelines, an employment-generating project’s VMT impact is considered less than significant if its home-work VMT per worker is at least 15 percent below the regional average home-work VMT per worker.

VMT Assessment. According to the City of Berkeley Transportation VMT Criteria and Thresholds,71 projects in a TPA (within a 0.5 mile walkshed of major transit stops or within a 0.25 mile walkshed

70 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. 71 Berkeley, City of. 2020. City of Berkeley Transportation VMT Criteria and Thresholds. June 29.

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) 4-92
around high‐quality transit corridors), small projects (equating to 20 units of residential use or up to 10,000 square feet of non‐residential use), and projects in low VMT areas are screened out from a VMT analysis and are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

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, the project site is located within a TPA and in a low VMT area (VMT per resident is at least 15 percent below the Bay Area average). As such, the proposed project meets the City’s VMT screening criteria. Based on its location and size, the proposed project is presumed to have no VMT impact.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? There are no proposed changes to existing public roadways or transportation-related infrastructure, nor are there any proposed roads internal to the project site. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? There are no proposed changes to existing public roadways or transportation-related infrastructure, and project construction would not require the closure of roads or redirection of traffic. In addition, during project construction, emergency access would be maintained. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on emergency access.

4.16.3 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 transportation. Impacts related to transportation 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

4-93
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)

4.17 TRIBAL 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 tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)? Or

ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

4.17.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.15 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of prescribed mitigation. The Housing Element EIR indicated that future development facilitated by the Housing Element could adversely impact tribal cultural resources due to ground-disturbing activity during construction. As such, the Housing Element EIR prescribed Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which requires tribal cultural monitors to monitor work done in areas of tribal concern for future projects that are determined through tribal consultation to potentially affect tribal cultural resources in order to reduce impacts to less than significant.

4.17.2 Project Impacts
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Or 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) 4-94
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which was signed into law in 2014, established specific requirements for tribal consultation on projects that may impact tribal cultural resources. AB 52 applies to projects if the Lead Agency prepares an EIR or a Negative/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND/MND) or if the project has the potential to affect tribal cultural resources. The City participated in tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 as part of the Housing Element EIR, and as such, no further tribal consultation is required for the proposed project and Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which prescribes measures for monitoring if requested through the consultation process, is not applicable.

As described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, no archeological resources have been identified at the project site. As such, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to impact tribal cultural resources. However, if significant archeological deposits were unearthed during project construction, a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource would occur from its demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). However, the proposed project would be required to comply with COA: Archeological Resources and COA: Human Remains, as detailed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, that addresses potential impacts to archeological resources and human remains. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with COA: Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources, which would address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.

COA: Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected. The project applicant and project construction contractor shall notify the City Planning Department within 24 hours. The City will again contact any tribes who have requested consultation under AB 52, as well as contact a qualified archeologist, to evaluate the resources and situation and provide recommendations. If it is determined that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. If the resource cannot be avoided, additional measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource and to address tribal concerns may be required.

With implementation of the City’s standard COAs identified in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, as well as COA: Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources, impacts to archeological deposits and human remains that may qualify as tribal cultural resources would not occur.

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

4-95
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) project site related to tribal cultural resources. Impacts related to tribal cultural 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.

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) 4-96

4.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

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. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

4.18.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.16 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to utilities and service systems. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant, and no mitigation was prescribed. The Housing Element EIR indicated that future development under the Housing Element would require utility service and connections for water supply, wastewater conveyance, and stormwater conveyance, as well as telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas, and determined that existing utility systems for water, wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities in the city have sufficient capacity to serve future development. Further, the Housing Element EIR determined that relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities resulting in significant environmental impacts would not occur, and adequate wastewater capacity exists to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

The Housing Element EIR also determined that although future development under the Housing Element would result in an increase in water demand, the increase in demand could be served by EBMUD with implementation of demand management measures required by EBMUD. Further, development facilitated by the Housing Element was determined to not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that implementation of the Housing Element would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

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

4-97
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)

4.18.2 Project Impacts
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Because the Housing Element EIR identified the project site as an Opportunity Site for residential development, development at the project site and the associated increase in demand on utility infrastructure at the project site has already been considered and analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. The proposed project would connect to existing water delivery and sanitary sewer systems within the vicinity of the project site, and it is anticipated that the existing infrastructure would have sufficient capacity to support project water and wastewater flows. In addition, as a condition of project approval, the project sponsor would be required to coordinate with EBMUD, the Berkeley Fire Department, and the City’s Public Works Department to assess water and wastewater flow and ensure the proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements.

As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, 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, 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. Because the discharge of stormwater to the existing stormwater infrastructure in the surrounding area would not be greater than pre-project conditions, as required by Provision C.3 of the MRP, no new or expanded stormwater infrastructure would be required.

The project site is currently served by electrical and telecommunications facilities. Therefore, because the proposed project would consist of infill development on a previously developed site that is currently served by utilities, the expansion of electrical or telecommunications facilities would not be required. In addition, the proposed building would be designed to be all electric, and therefore would not include the use of any traditional gas systems or facilities.

Based on the analysis above, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Because the Housing Element EIR identified the project site as an Opportunity Site for residential development, development at the project site and the associated increase in water demand at the project site has already been considered and analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Water service at the project site and in the project area is provided by EBMUD. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, EBMUD obtains approximately 90 percent of its water from the Mokelumne River watershed and transports it through pipe aqueducts to temporary storage reservoirs 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) 4-98
East Bay hills. EBMUD has water rights and facilities to divert up to a daily maximum of 325 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Mokelumne River.72 Average daily water demand within the entire EBMUD service area is projected to be 245 mgd in 2025, 254 mgd in 2030, 277 mgd in 2040, and 297 mgd in 2050.73
The proposed project would develop the project site with a new eight-story, mixed-use residential building consisting of approximately 690 square feet of commercial space and 110 residential units.

As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would result in approximately 261 new residents and three employees at the project site. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a single person uses approximately 82 gallons per day (gpd) of water at home,74 and retail uses use approximately 5 gallons of water per square foot per year.75 Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to require approximately 21,411 gpd of water (approximately 21,402 gpd associated with the residential uses and 9 gpd associated with the commercial uses). This accounts for less than 0.1 percent of EBMUD’s projected service-wide daily water demand for 2025. Furthermore, EBMUD’s projected water demand accounts for projected growth within the region as identified by ABAG. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site, water demand associated with the project site has been accommodated in EBMUD’s supply and demand projections. Therefore, EBMUD would not require new or expanded water entitlements to serve the proposed project.

EBMUD completed development of a revised Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) 2040 Plan in April of 2012, which is the District’s plan for providing water to its customers for a span of 30 years.76 According to the WSMP 2040 Plan, EBMUD’s water supplies are estimated to be sufficient during the planning period (2010–2040) in normal and single dry years. Therefore, EBMUD would have adequate water supply to provide water service to the proposed project.

The WSMP 2040 Plan emphasizes maximum conservation and recycling strategies, with a total of 50 mgd of future supply to be provided from those two component categories. However, looking toward 2040, EBMUD’s current supply is insufficient to meet customer needs during multi-year droughts despite EBMUD’s aggressive water conservation and recycled water programs.77 According to the WSMP 2040 Plan, the combination of rationing, conservation, and raw and recycled water will satisfy increased customer demand through 2040.78 Supplemental supply will also be needed to keep rationing at a lower level and to meet the need for water in drought years.

72 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. 73 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2021b. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 3-1:

Average Annual Water Demand Forecast 2050 Demand Projections (MGD). June. 74 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). n.d. WaterSense, Statistics and Facts. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/watersense/statistics-and-facts (accessed March 2025) 75 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023b. WaterSense, Energy Star Portfolio Manager, U.S. Water Use Intensity by Property Type Technical Reference. June. 76 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2012. Water Supply Management Program 2040 Plan. April. 77 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2012. Op. cit. 78 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2016. Op. cit.

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

4-99
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) Future users of the project site (and all EBMUD customers) would be required to comply with Policy EM-26 in the City of Berkeley General Plan that promotes water conservation through City programs and requirements, including cooperation with EBMUD to make recycled water available for irrigation and other uses. Policy EM-26 of the City’s General Plan, as described below, provides direction for incorporating water conservation measures into the project design.

Policy EM-26: Water Conservation. Promote water conservation through City programs and requirements.
a. Action EM-26 A: Encourage drought-tolerant landscaping and low-flow irrigation systems.
b. Action EM-26 B: Consider participation in the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s East Bay-shore Recycled Water Project to make recycled water available for irrigation and other non-potable uses.

Compliance with Policy EM-26 by incorporating water conservation measures such as drought- tolerant landscaping into the proposed project’s design would ensure efficient use of water at the project site and minimize the project’s potential water demand.

EBMUD also imposes a system capacity charge on new developments to fund system maintenance and the development of new water sources. The project sponsor would be required to pay this fee and undertake water conservation measures to conserve water (e.g., the installation of low-flow toilets). In addition, the project sponsor would also be required to comply with the following condition of approval related to water efficient landscaping:

COA: Water Efficient Landscaping (prior to the issuance of any building [construction] permit). Landscaping, totaling 500 square feet of more of new landscaping or 2,500 square feet or more of renovated irrigated area, shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). MWELO-compliant landscape documentation including a planting, grading, and irrigation plan shall be included in site plans. Water budget calculations are also required for landscapes of 2,500 square feet or more and shall be included in site plans. The reference evapotranspiration rate for Berkeley is 41.8.

As required by the City, the project sponsor would also be required to provide a Bay-Friendly Basics Landscape Checklist that includes detailed notes of any measures that would not be fully met by the project (if any). 79 Landscape improvements are required to be consistent with the current versions of the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Section 31 of EBMUD’s Water Service Regulations (Water Efficiency Requirements), which require that applicable water-efficiency measures be installed on water-using equipment at the project sponsor’s expense. The project sponsor would also be required to coordinate with EBMUD and the Berkeley Fire Department to assess fire flow requirements and comply with them as part of the project. With compliance with policies contained in the City’s General Plan, COAs, and other applicable City requirements, impacts associated with project demand and water supply would not occur.

79 Berkeley, City of. 2016b. Stormwater Requirements Overview. June 6.

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) 4-100
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Because the Housing Element EIR identified the project site as an Opportunity Site for residential development, development at the project site and the associated increase in demand on wastewater service at the project site has already been considered and analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. In the city, sanitary sewage flows through the City’s collection system to the EBMUD’s North Interceptor, which then directly flows to EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) in the City of Oakland for treatment and disposal. The City’s collection system consists of lower laterals and sewer mains. Buildings connect to the City’s collection system through the upper laterals, which are privately owned and maintained. Within the city, there are approximately 260 miles of sanitary sewer mains, with an estimated 28,000 lateral connections. The sewer mains vary from 1 to 100 years old, and vary in size from 6 to 48 inches in diameter.80 The City, EBMUD, and the MWWTP serve the project site and the surrounding area.

The City operates the sanitary sewer infrastructure located in the surrounding streets and sidewalks.

Facilities typically range in size from 8 inches to 18 inches in diameter. The proposed project would connect to existing sanitary sewer systems within the vicinity of the project site and would be required to conduct sewer capacity analysis to determine if the existing sewer infrastructure would be able to accommodate wastewater flows from the project and identify impacts to flow capacity, pipeline alignments, need for easements, and chemical and physical character of wastewater. If the sewer capacity analysis determines that there is insufficient capacity, the project developer will be required to improve the infrastructure in order to accommodate increased wastewater flows. In addition, the project sponsor would be required to coordinate with EBMUD, the Berkeley Fire Department, and the City’s Public Works Department to assess water and wastewater flow and ensure the proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements.

The City’s sewer system is connected to trunk lines that convey flows to the MWWTP. The MWWTP has a primary treatment capacity of 320 mgd and a secondary treatment capacity of 168 mgd. 81 Storage basins provide plant capacity for a short-term hydraulic peak of 415 mgd. The average annual daily flow into the MWWTP is approximately 63 mgd, representing approximately 37.5 percent of the plant’s secondary treatment capacity. Treated effluent is disinfected, dechlorinated, and discharged through a deep-water outfall 1 mile off the East Bay shoreline into San Francisco Bay.

In compliance with the July 28, 2014, Consent Decree, the City has implemented a long-term mandated Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Program to eliminate Sanitary Sewer Overflows and reduce stormwater Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) into the sanitary sewer system. Under this program, the City utilizes a comprehensive asset management approach based on complex and evolving hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and condition assessments to repair, replace, or upgrade the

80 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. 81 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2016. Wastewater Treatment. Website:
https://www.ebmud.com/wastewater/collection-treatment/wastewater-treatment (accessed June 13, 2024).

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

4-101
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) City’s portion of the sanitary sewer system, ultimately to aid EBMUD in eliminating discharges from their Wet Weather Facilities (which provide additional treatment capacity during storm events) by the end of 2035.

The proposed project would generate wastewater to be treated by the EBMUD treatment facilities.

EBMUD is required to meet applicable RWQCB treatment requirements in compliance with NPDES requirements. In addition, the proposed project must not use any of EBMUD’s wet weather treatment capacity, and the property owners will be responsible for maintaining their private sewer lateral and site plumbing to ensure no inflow/infiltration enters the sewer system pursuant to BMC Sections 17.24.030(A)(2), 17.24.030(A)(3), and 17.06.020. In the absence of an official wastewater generation estimate, wastewater generated by full buildout associated with the zoning and General Plan amendments is assumed to be 90 percent of water demand, or 22,966 gpd (refer to Section

4.19.b, above), which comprises less than 1 percent of the remaining capacity of the MWWTP.

Therefore, the proposed project would not generate wastewater exceeding the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB.

Wastewater discharges that may occur at the project site would be required to comply with the terms of the applicable MRP and may be subject to monitoring by EBMUD to ensure that the development’s sewage discharge does not impair the ability of the MWWTP to meet wastewater treatment objectives and requirements. As such, no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements would occur.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
The City operates its own refuse collection system. The City provides curbside recycling and refuse collection services to the project site. There are two permitted landfills in Alameda County with the capacity to accommodate solid waste generated in Berkeley: Altamont Landfill and the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. The combined permitted capacity of waste for these two landfills is 95 million cubic yards, which the proposed project would not exceed. Solid waste from the site would be transported to the Berkeley Transfer Station, located at 1021 Second Street, and then on to the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility, located near the Altamont Pass, northeast of Livermore. The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s waste disposal needs.

The project site is currently developed with a two‐story commercial building. Implementation of the proposed project would include the demolition of the existing structure, thereby generating demolition waste. The proposed project would be subject to the Waste Diversion and Universal Waste disposal requirements of BMC Chapter 19.37, and all demolition and construction waste would be recycled consistent with State and City requirements. The State requires a 65 percent diversion (recycling and reuse) of construction waste, and the City requires 100 percent of concrete, asphalt, and land clearing debris to be diverted from landfills. The project sponsor would be required to prepare and submit to the City a Construction Demolition Recycling Plan prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit for the proposed project. The purpose of the Construction 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) 4-102
Demolition Recycling Plan is to divert as much debris as possible from the waste stream consistent with, and in addition to, State and City requirements.

Prior to approval of large development projects, the City’s Solid Waste Management Division staff reviews proposed plans for the adequate design of trash and recycling facilities. Alameda County Waste Management Authority Ordinance 2008-01 requires businesses in Alameda County that generate 4 or more cubic yards of garbage per week to separate all plant debris from garbage and recyclable materials. Additionally, development projects that require a use permit are required to comply with the following COA that addresses these potential impacts:

COA: Recycling and Organics Collection. Applicant shall provide recycling and organics collection areas for occupants, clearly marked on plans, which comply with the Alameda County Organics Reduction and Recycling Ordinance (2021-02). Contact the Zero Waste Division’s Recycling Program Manager, Julia A. Heath, at [email protected].

The proposed project would also be required to provide trash enclosure space (inside or outside for large dumpsters) and trash, compost, fiber recycling, and container recycling collection bins that would be co-located in tenant-facing trash rooms.

According to the EPA, a single person generates approximately 4.9 pounds of solid waste per day (residential),82 and commercial uses generate approximately 10.53 pounds of solid waste per employee per day.83 As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, implementation of the proposed project would result in approximately 261 residents and three new employees at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,578 pounds of solid waste per day (approximately 1,524 pounds per day associated with the residential uses and 52.6 pounds per day associated with the commercial uses). This represents a negligible increase in solid waste generated in the city and would not exceed the combined permitted capacity of waste for the two permitted landfills in Alameda County.

As such, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of local standards. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Refer to Section 4.18.d, above. The proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and/or regulations related to project solid waste.

82 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023a. National Overview: Facts and Figures about Materials, Waste and Recycling. Website: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials- waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials (accessed August 30, 2024). 83 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates (accessed August 30, 2024).

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

4-103
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)

4.18.3 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 utilities and service systems. Impacts on utilities and service systems 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) 4-104

4.19 WILDFIRE

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
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

4.19.1 Housing Element EIR Analysis
Section 4.17 of the Housing Element EIR analyzed potential impacts related to wildfire. The Housing Element EIR determined that all impacts related to wildfire would be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of identified mitigation. The Housing Element EIR determined that because future development facilitated by the proposed project would occur in hillside areas located near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), impacts related to emergency response and evacuation that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and expose people or structures to significant risks due to the terrain and slope in the Berkeley hills would be significant and unavoidable even with adherence to existing regulations and fire safety provisions in the BMC, including the Fire Code. The Housing Element EIR also prescribed Mitigation Measure W-1, which requires new or upgraded power drops located in the VHFHSZ to be installed underground if additional maintenance or construction of such infrastructure would occur at the Opportunity Sites within Residential zoning districts R, R-2, and R-2a, which are located near an SRA and in a VHFHSZ.

4.19.2 Project Impacts
The project site is on an infill site surrounded by development in an urban area of Berkeley. The site is not within a VHFHSZ or an SRA for fire service84 and, as described in Section 4.9, Hazards and

84 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. September 29. Effective April 1, 2024. Website: https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis. com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008 (accessed June 21, 2024).

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

4-105
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, would not impair the implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan. The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and therefore would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. In addition, the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure and would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of post-fire slope instability or drainage and runoff changes. As such, no impact either individually or cumulatively related to wildfire would occur. In addition, because the proposed project is not located within the R, R-2, and R-2a zoning districts, located near an SRA, and is not within a VHFHSZ, Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure W-1 would not be applicable to the proposed project.

4.19.3 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 wildfire. Impacts related to wildfire would remain significant and unavoidable, as identified in the Housing Element EIR. Because the proposed project would result in no impacts related to wildfire, the proposed project would not contribute to, exacerbate, or increase the significant unavoidable impacts 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

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

5-1
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)

5.0 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 ANALYSIS

5.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 (PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY

PLAN, GENERAL PLAN, OR ZONING)
The discussion in this section confirms that the proposed project has been evaluated for significant impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no new information of substantial importance meeting the criteria listed in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 has been identified. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the determination is that the proposed project’s impacts have been considered in the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (Housing Element EIR) that was reviewed and certified by the City of Berkeley (City), and that the Housing Element EIR provides a sufficient and adequate analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed project.

A. The project would be consistent with the land uses, densities, and other zoning and development standards set forth in the Housing Element EIR.

The City’s General Plan designates the project site as Neighborhood Commercial and is located within three zoning districts. Approximately 19,788 square feet of the project site is in the North Shattuck Commercial (C-NS) zone, approximately 1,970 square feet is in the Multiple-Family Residential (R-4) zone, and approximately 584 square feet is in the Restricted Multiple-Family Residential (R-2A) zone. The project site has also been identified as an Opportunity Site for residential development in the City’s Housing Element.

As discussed in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies and the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan land use designation for the project site, and would be consistent with the purposes of the C-NS, R-4, and R-2A zoning districts. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the development standards of these zoning districts with approval of various Administrative Use and Use Permits pursuant to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), which would be considered by the City’s Zoning Adjustments Board. These permits would allow an increase in building height, lot coverage, and building footprint, as well as setback waivers in order to accommodate the density bonus units.

Although the proposed project would develop the project site with a greater residential density than detailed in the C-NS, R-4, and R-2A zoning districts, the proposed project would be consistent with the criteria of the State Density Bonus Law by providing nine affordable to very low-income units (15 percent) and nine affordable to moderate income units (15 percent) as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. As such, pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project would be consistent with the land uses, densities, and other zoning and development standards for the project site.

The Housing Element EIR analyzed impacts at a programmatic level and does not consist of specific projects. The overall use and intent of the proposed project would be consistent with the vision and intent of the Housing Element, which was evaluated in the Housing Element EIR.

The proposed project would not require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR, and 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) 5-2
proposed project would not result in any new impacts that would require additional mitigation measures beyond those required in the Housing Element EIR.

B. There are no peculiar impacts associated with the project or the project site.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(1), this section presents a summary of the examination included in Section 4.0, demonstrating that the project would not result in environmental effects that are peculiar to the project or the project site. If no additional mitigation measures are required to reduce project-specific impacts to a less than significant level other than those required in the prior EIR, then a State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 exemption applies.

Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project would be the same as or similar to those impacts identified in the Housing Element EIR for all resource topics discussed in Section 4.0. For resource topics with significant and unavoidable impact conclusions in the Housing Element EIR (e.g., historical resources, noise, and wildfire), the proposed project would result in reduced impact conclusions. The proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures from the Housing Element EIR including Mitigation Measures AIR-3, CUL-2, and GEO-1.

The proposed project would not result in any new impacts that would require additional mitigation measures beyond those required by the Housing Element EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, and there would be no impacts peculiar to the project or the project site.

C. The proposed project would not result in any environmental effects that were not in a prior EIR.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2), this section presents a summary of the examination included in Section 4.0, demonstrating that the proposed project would not result in any environmental effects that were not analyzed as significant effects in the Housing Element EIR.

The Housing Element EIR determined that growth and development under the Housing Element would result in either no impact, less than significant impacts, or impacts that could be reduced to less than significant with implementation of prescribed mitigation for all issue areas except for impacts related to historical resources, construction noise, and wildfire. As discussed in Section 4.0, the proposed project would not contribute any different or more severe impacts related to any of these issue areas than those identified in the Housing Element EIR.

D. The proposed project would not result in any new environmental effects due to potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(3), this section presents a summary of the examination included in Section 4.0, demonstrating that the project would not result in any environmental effects that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the Housing Element EIR.

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

5-3
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 not increase significant off-site or cumulative impacts. The proposed project would not contribute significantly to public utility demand, traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, given that the appropriate mitigation measures discussed in the Housing Element EIR and outlined in Section 7.0 would be implemented during construction and operation of the proposed project. In addition, as identified in Section 4.0, the proposed project would not contribute any more severe impacts for any environmental resource category than those analyzed in the Housing Element EIR.

E. The proposed project would not result in any new environmental effects as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the Housing Element EIR was certified, which would result in more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the Housing Element EIR.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(4), this section demonstrates that the proposed project would not result in any new environmental effects as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the Housing Element EIR was certified.

The Housing Element EIR was certified on January 18, 2025. Updated planning documents, including ordinances, that were adopted by the City after Housing Element EIR certification do not provide substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified.

Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all updated regulations, such as building codes, zoning amendments, and any other updates to the zoning code, as required by the City.

Since no substantial new information not known at the time of the Housing Element EIR is available, no updated analyses or other studies are required for the proposed project.

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) 5-4
This page intentionally left blank

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

6-1
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)

6.0 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162 ANALYSIS

6.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162 (SUBSEQUENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL EIR) The discussion in this section confirms that the proposed project has been evaluated for significant impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no new information of substantial importance meeting the criteria listed in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 has been identified. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the determination is that the proposed project’s impacts have been considered in the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report (Housing Element EIR) that was reviewed and certified by the City of Berkeley (City), and that the Housing Element EIR provides a sufficient and adequate analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed project.

A. “Substantial Changes in the Project” Standard
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1), this section presents a discussion of whether the proposed project constitutes a substantial change in the project analyzed in the Housing Element EIR that would require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

As discussed in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies and the General Plan land use designation for the project site, and would be consistent with the purposes of the project site’s zoning districts. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the development standards of those zoning districts with approval of various Administrative Use and Use Permits pursuant to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), which would be considered by the City’s Zoning Adjustments Board.

These permits would allow an increase in building height, lot coverage, and building footprint, as well as setback waivers in order to accommodate the density bonus units. Although the proposed project would develop the project site with a greater residential density than detailed in the C-NS, R-4, and R-2A zoning districts, the proposed project would be consistent with the criteria of the State Density Bonus Law by providing 11 affordable to very low-income units (15 percent) and nine affordable to moderate income units (15 percent), as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. As such, pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project would be consistent with the land uses, densities, and other zoning and development standards for the project site.

The Housing Element EIR analyzed impacts at a programmatic level and does not consist of specific projects. The overall use and intent of the proposed project would be consistent with the vision and intent of the Housing Element, which was evaluated in the Housing Element EIR.

The proposed project would not require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any new impacts that would require additional mitigation measures beyond those required in the Housing Element EIR.

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) 6-2
B. “Substantial Changes in the Circumstances” Standard
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2), this section presents a discussion of whether changes to the project site or the vicinity (environmental setting) have occurred after certification of the Housing Element EIR that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact that were not evaluated and mitigated by the Housing Element EIR.

As shown on Figure 3-2, the project site is located in an urbanized area of the city and is generally surrounded by existing development, including single- and multi-family residential and commercial uses. This area of the city is substantially developed, and has been in this developed state since preparation of the Housing Element EIR in 2023. As such, no changes to the project site or the vicinity (environmental setting) have occurred since certification of the Housing Element EIR that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact that were not evaluated and mitigated by the Housing Element EIR. In addition, the project site was identified as an Opportunity Site in the City’s Housing Element, which indicates that the City assumes the project site would be developed with residential uses.

In addition, one of the requirements of CEQA is the examination of whether a proposed project would conflict with existing plans and regulations, including the General Plan, zoning regulations, and other planning documents. Inconsistencies may suggest that a project would have environmental effects that have not been identified in advance and for which planning or analysis has not occurred. As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning designations for the site pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. No amendments to the General Plan or zoning designations would be required.

Based on the above, no substantial change in circumstances at the project site or in the surrounding area has occurred that would result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts from what has been anticipated for the project site in the Housing Element EIR.

C. “New Information of Substantial Importance” Standard Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), this section includes a discussion of whether there is new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Housing Element EIR was certified. New information of substantial importance includes: (1) one or more significant effects not discussed in the Housing Element EIR; (2) significant effects previously examined that are substantially more severe than shown in the Housing Element EIR; (3) 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 (4) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

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

6-3
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 Housing Element EIR was certified on January 18, 2025. Updated planning documents, including ordinances, that were adopted by the City after Housing Element EIR certification do not provide substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified.

Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all updated regulations, such as building codes, zoning amendments, and any other updates to the zoning code, as required by the City.

Since no substantial new information not known at the time of the Housing Element EIR is available, no updated analyses or other studies are required for the proposed project.

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) 6-4
This page intentionally left blank
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

7-1
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)

7.0 APPLICABLE HOUSING ELEMENT EIR MITIGATION MEASURES AND

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURES
Applicable 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report (Housing Element EIR) mitigation measures and City conditions of approvals are identified in Tables 7.A and

7.B, respectively.

Table 7.A: Applicable Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measures Housing Element Mitigation Measure Timing for Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Air Quality
AQ-3: TAC Exposure Reduction Building Measures. The following design features shall be incorporated for residential development located within 1,000 feet of I-580/80 or on a lot that fronts on a section of roadway with 10,000 vehicles per day or more in order to reduce exposure of proposed residences to TACs from vehicles and stationary combustion engines (i.e., generators):

1. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high efficiency particulate filters (HEPA). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 99.97 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system (U.S. EPA 2022). The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter.

Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors.

2. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system.

3. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years.

Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project.

4. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph).

5. Prepare an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems, consistent with manufacturers’ recommendations.

The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project.

Prior to the issuance
of any building permit.

Applicant / City of
Berkeley Planning and
Development
Department
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) 7-2
Table 7.A: Applicable Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measures Housing Element Mitigation Measure Timing for Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Cultural Resources
CUL-2 Historical Resources Discretionary Review. For projects that are subject to discretionary review that occur during the Housing Element period where a historical-age building or structure that has not been previously evaluated is present, a historical resources assessment shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level survey in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines to determine if the property qualifies for federal, state, or local historical resources designation. All age eligible properties shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a technical memorandum with Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms.

Should a property be found to be a qualifying historical resource, the project shall be subject to the City’s regulations for permit review, including by the Preservation Landmarks Commission pursuant to Chapter 3.24.260, and/or by the Zoning Adjustments Board pursuant to Chapter 23.326 of the City of Berkeley Municipal Code. Efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated.

Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources built environment assessment shall also identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities.

Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR § 15126.4(b)(1)). Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how the project complies with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. These may include documentation of the resource in a manner consistent with the standards of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS). Documentation should include full descriptive and historical narrative, measured drawings, and medium format photographs, all in archivally stable format.

Prior to the issuance of
any building permit.

Qualified Architectural
Historian / City of
Berkeley Planning and
Development
Department
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

7-3
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) Table 7.A: Applicable Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measures Housing Element Mitigation Measure Timing for Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Protection of Paleontological Resources. If 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), then the City shall require the following to be implemented:

Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to initial ground disturbance, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010), to determine the project’s potential to significantly impact paleontological resources according to SVP (2010) standards. If underlying formations are found to have a high potential for paleontological resources, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall create a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program, which will be approved by the City and contain the following elements: If underlying formations are found to have a high potential for paleontological resources, the Qualified Paleontologist shall create a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program, which will be approved by the City and contain the following elements:

Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP).

Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff.

Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work) in sediments assigned a high paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified Paleontological Resources Monitor, as defined by the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist based on the observation of the geologic setting from initial ground disturbance, and subject to the review and approval by the City. If the Qualified Professional Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions once the full depth of excavations has been reached, they may
Prior to the issuance of
any building permit.

Qualified Paleontologist /
City of Berkeley Planning
and Development
Department
Source: Housing Element (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) 7-4
Table 7.B: Applicable City Conditions of Approval
Issue Area City COA
Aesthetics 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.

Air Quality Public Works – Implement Air District-Recommended Measures During Construction. For all proposed projects, Air District recommends implementing all the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, 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 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. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency 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.

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.

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

7-5
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) Table 7.B: Applicable City Conditions of Approval
Issue Area City COA
⚫ 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.

Biological Resources 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.

Cultural Resources 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.

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 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) 7-6
Table 7.B: Applicable City Conditions of Approval
Issue Area City COA
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.

Geology and Soils 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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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.

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.

Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
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 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 Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

7-7
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) Table 7.B: Applicable City Conditions of Approval
Issue Area City COA
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, 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 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) 7-8
Table 7.B: Applicable City Conditions of Approval
Issue Area City COA
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.

Hydrology and Water Quality 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 Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

7-9
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) Table 7.B: Applicable City Conditions of Approval
Issue Area City COA
sanitary district with jurisdiction for receiving the discharge.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Noise Construction Noise Reduction Program.The applicant shall develop a site-specific noise reduction program prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to reduce construction noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible, subject to review and approval of the Zoning Officer.

The noise reduction program shall include the time limits for construction listed above, as measures needed to ensure that construction complies with BMC Section 13.40.070. The noise reduction program should include, but shall not be limited to, the following available controls to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical:
⚫ Construction equipment should be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.
⚫ Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good 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) 7-10
Table 7.B: Applicable City Conditions of Approval
Issue Area City COA
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
⚫ Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. Select hydraulically or electrically powered equipment and avoid pneumatically powered equipment where feasible.
⚫ Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when adjoining construction sites. Construct temporary noise barriers or partial enclosures to acoustically shield such equipment where feasible.
⚫ Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. ⚫ If impact pile driving is required, pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.
⚫ Construct solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to operational business, residences or other noise-sensitive land uses where the noise control plan analysis determines that a barrier would be effective at reducing noise. ⚫ Erect temporary noise control blanket barriers, if necessary, along building facades facing construction sites. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected.
⚫ Route construction related traffic along major roadways and away from sensitive receptors where feasible.

Construction Noise Management – Public Notice Required.At least two weeks prior to initiating any construction activities at the site, the applicant shall provide notice to businesses and residents within 500 feet of the Project site. This notice shall at a minimum provide the following: (1) project description, (2) description of construction activities during extended work hours and reason for extended hours, (3) daily construction schedule (i.e., time of day) and expected duration (number of months), (4) the name and phone number of the Project Liaison for the Project that is responsible for responding to any local complaints, and (5) that construction work is about to commence. The liaison would determine the cause of all construction-related complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, worker parking, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the City for review and approval.

Construction Phases.The applicant shall provide the Zoning Officer with a schedule of major construction phases with start dates and expected duration, a description of the activities and anticipated noise levels of each phase, and the name(s) and phone number(s) of the individual(s) directly supervising each phase. The Zoning Officer or his/her designee shall have the authority to require an onsite meeting with these individuals as necessary to ensure compliance with these conditions. The applicant shall notify the Zoning Officer of any changes to this schedule as soon as possible.

Construction Hours.Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.

Construction Hours – Exceptions. It is recognized that certain construction activities, such as the placement of concrete, must be performed in a continuous manner and may require an extension of these work hours. Prior to initiating any activity that might require a longer period, the developer must notify the Zoning Officer and request an exception for a finite period of time.

If the Zoning Officer approves the request, then two weeks prior to the expanded schedule, the developer shall notify businesses and residents within 500 feet of the Project site describing the expanded construction hours. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the City for review and approval. The Project shall not be allowed more than 15 extended working days.

Project Construction Website.The applicant shall establish a Project construction website with the following information clearly accessible and updated monthly or more frequently as changes Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

7-11
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 7.B: Applicable City Conditions of Approval
Issue Area City COA
warrant:
⚫ Contact information (i.e., "hotline" phone number, and email address) for the Project construction manager
⚫ Calendar and schedule of daily/weekly/monthly construction activities ⚫ The final Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Transportation Construction Plan, Construction Noise Reduction Program, and any other reports or programs related to construction noise, air quality, and traffic.

Damage Due to Construction Vibration.The project applicant shall submit screening level analysis prior to, or concurrent with demolition building permit. If a screening level analysis shows that the Project has the potential to result in damage to structures, a structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall be retained to prepare a vibration impact assessment (assessment). The assessment shall take into account project specific information such as the composition of the structures, location of the various types of equipment used during each phase of the project, as well as the soil characteristics in the project area, in order to determine whether project construction may cause damage to any of the structures identified as potentially impacted in the screening level analysis. If the assessment finds that the Project may cause damage to nearby structures, the structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall recommend design means and methods of construction that to avoid the potential damage, if feasible. The assessment and its recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety Division and the Zoning Officer. If there are no feasible design means or methods to eliminate the potential for damage, the structural engineer or other appropriate professional shall undertake an existing conditions study (study) of any structures (or, in case of large buildings, of the portions of the structures) that may experience damage. This study shall:
⚫ Establish the baseline condition of these structures, including, but not limited to, the location and extent of any visible cracks or spalls; and
⚫ Include written descriptions and photographs.

Tribal Cultural Resources COA: Archeological Resources and COA: Human Remains.

Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected. The project applicant and project construction contractor shall notify the City Planning Department within 24 hours. The City will again contact any tribes who have requested consultation under AB 52, as well as contact a qualified archeologist, to evaluate the resources and situation and provide recommendations. If it is determined that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. If the resource cannot be avoided, additional measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource and to address tribal concerns may be required.

Utilities and Service Systems Water Efficient Landscaping (prior to the issuance of any building [construction] permit).

Landscaping, totaling 500 square feet of more of new landscaping or 2,500 square feet or more of renovated irrigated area, shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). MWELO-compliant landscape documentation including a planting, grading, and irrigation plan shall be included in site plans. Water budget calculations are also required for landscapes of 2,500 square feet or more and shall be included in site plans. The reference evapotranspiration rate for Berkeley is 41.8
Recycling and Organics Collection. Applicant shall provide recycling and organics collection areas for occupants, clearly marked on plans, which comply with the Alameda County Organics Reduction and Recycling Ordinance (2021-02). Contact the Zero Waste Division’s Recycling Program Manager, Julia A. Heath, at [email protected].

Source: Compiled by LSA (2025).

COA = conditions of approval
Item 7a, Attachment 8
ZAB 2025-09-11

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

8-1
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)

8.0 REPORT PREPARERS

8.1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, CA 94801
Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal in Charge
Florentina Craciun, AICP, Project Manager
Lauren Peachey, Assistant Project Manager/Environmental Planner Beverly Inloes, Associate/Senior Technical Editor
Chantik Virgil, Senior Word Processor
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) 8-2
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)

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

ACC Environmental Consultants. 2024. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1685 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, California 94709. August 14.

Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit (AC Transit). 2024. Maps & Schedules. Website:
https://www.actransit.org/maps-schedules (accessed March 2025).

Bay Area Air District (Air District). 2023. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.

April.

Berkeley, City of. 2001a. City of Berkeley General Plan.

Berkeley, City of. 2001b. City of Berkeley General Plan, Land Use Element. December 18.

Berkeley, City of. 2009. City of Berkeley Climate Action Plan. June.

Berkeley, City of. 2011. 2011 Watershed Management Plan. October.

Berkeley, City of. 2014. Municipal Code, Tables 13.40-1, 13.40-2, and 13.40-4.

Berkeley, City of. 2016a. Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan. June.

Berkeley, City of. 2016b. Stormwater Requirements Overview. June 6.

Berkeley, City of. 2020. City of Berkeley Transportation VMT Criteria and Thresholds. June 29.

Berkeley, City of. 2022a. City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2022010331. August.

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

Berkeley, City of. 2023. City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. January. Amended February 17, 2023.

Berkeley, City of. 2024. City of Berkeley Standard Details, Streets and Sidewalks. May 10.

Berkeley, City of. n.d. Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 23.202, Residential Districts, Section

23.202.090, R-2A Restricted Multiple-Family Residential District.

Berkeley, City of. n.d. Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 23.202, Residential Districts, Section

23.202.110, R-4 Multi-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) Berkeley, City of. n.d. Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 23.204, Commercial Districts, Section

23.204.090, C-NS North Shattuck Commercial District.

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).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). n.d. DOC Maps: Geologic Hazards, Seismic Hazards Program: Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/maps-data (accessed March 2025).

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

Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff (accessed March 2025).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder.

Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/ (accessed March 2025).

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

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. September 29. Effective April 1, 2024. Website: https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597a b693d008 (accessed June 21, 2024).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/ General/Rates (accessed August 30, 2024).

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, East Bay Plain Subbasin. February 27. Website:
water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118 (accessed March 2025).

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). n.d. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard.

Website: gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final (accessed March 2025).

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

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

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2012. Water Supply Management Program 2040 Plan.

April.

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2016. Wastewater Treatment. Website:
https://www.ebmud.com/wastewater/collection-treatment/wastewater-treatment (accessed June 13, 2024).

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) East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June.

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2021b. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 3-1:

Average Annual Water Demand Forecast 2050 Demand Projections (MGD). June.

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2021c. Water Supply. Website:
www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-water/water-supply (accessed March 2025).

East Bay Municipal Utility District GSA and City of Hayward GSA. 2022. East Bay Plan Subbasin, Groundwater Sustainability Plan. January.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06001C0019G. August 3. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery= 2942%20college%20avenue%2C%20berkeley (accessed March 2025).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1977. An evaluation of expedient methodology for identification of potentially expansive soils. Report No. FHWA-RD-77-94. June.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model.

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

LSA Associates, Inc. 2025. Air Quality Analysis Technical Memorandum for the 2109 Virginia Street Project. May 8.

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.

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).

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_2024state_ir_reports%2Fapx-a-2024- 303d-list-final.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK (accessed March 2025).

Strategic Economics. 2016. Envision 2040, 4-Year Review, Market Overview and Employment Lands Analysis. January 28.

Trachtenberg Architecture. City of Berkeley C.3 Stormwater Requirements Checklist, Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP 3), Stormwater Controls for Development Project Checklist.

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) United States Census Bureau. City of Berkeley, QuickFacts, Persons per household, 2018-2022.

Website: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/berkeleycitycalifornia/PST045222 (accessed March 2025).

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).

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).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023a. National Overview: Facts and Figures about Materials, Waste and Recycling. Website: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and- figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials (accessed August 30, 2024).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023b. WaterSense, Energy Star Portfolio Manager, U.S. Water Use Intensity by Property Type Technical Reference. June.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). n.d. WaterSense, Statistics and Facts.

Website: https://www.epa.gov/watersense/statistics-and-facts (accessed March 2025).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory. Website: https://fws primary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed March 2025).

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

Attachment 4

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
ZAB APPEAL: 2109 VIRGINIA STREET, USE PERMIT ZP2024-0066 The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2026 at 6:00 P.M. a public hearing will be conducted to consider an appeal against a decision by the Zoning Adjustment Board to approve Zoning Permit #ZP2024- 0066 to demolish a two-story, 4,604-square-foot non-residential building and surface parking lot, and construct an eight-story (89 feet and 4 inches) 112,969 square-foot mixed-use residential building containing 110 dwelling units (including 9 Very Low- Income and 9 Moderate Income Density Bonus qualifying units), 690 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, 109 off-street vehicle parking spaces and 64 bicycle parking spaces.

The hearing will be held on January 27, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

For further information, please contact Singeh Saliki, Senior Planner at (510) 981-7412 A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of January 15, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to [email protected] in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e- mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information. __________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Mailed by: January 13, 2026
Noticed Pursuant To: Noticed Pursuant to: Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.404.040(B), Public Hearing Notice

Attachment 4
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny(Code Civ. Proc. 1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5) an appeal, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, no lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny or approve a Zoning Adjustments Board decision may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Zoning Adjustments Board decision, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage prior to the public hearing.

Administrative Record
This attachment is on file and available for review at
the City Clerk Department, or can be accessed from
the City Council Website. Copies of the attachment
are available upon request.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
or from:

The City of Berkeley’s Website
http://www.berkeleyca.gov
Attachment

Berkeley City Councilmember
Mark Humbert, District 8
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected]
www.MarkHumbert.com

ACTION CALENDAR
June 17, 2025January 27, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Councilmember Mark Humbert (Author) and Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe (Co-sponsor)
Subject: Rescission and replacement of the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. xxxx-N.S. which rRescind and replace Ordinance 7760-N.S. and A adopt a resolution to rescind the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance (Ord. 7760-NS, enacted May 11, 2021) because the State-level reporting requirements mandated by California AB 481Chapter 12.8 (Sections 7070 to 7075) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code (hereafter referred to as Chapter 12.8) already provide a comprehensive and sufficient framework for police equipment oversight.

This item would bring Berkeley’s local reporting requirements into alignment with those of AB 481 Chapter 12.8 and allow for one consolidated report, beginning with the 2025 report due in March 2026. The item would also maintain additional targeted reporting requirements for equipment deployment and ongoing use of force reporting under Policy 300.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On July 21, 2025, the Public Safety Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Kesarwani/Blackaby) to send the item with a qualified positive recommendation to Council, recognizing the intention for one report, with the following matters noted for further consideration:
• Clarifying the role of public reporting of data through the Transparency Hub. • Continued consideration of less-lethal deployment policies, including a possible review of Policy 300.
• Consideration of reporting on the acquisition and use of controlled equipment, aligning with AB 481 and allowing for review by the Police Accountability Board.

Vote: All Ayes.

Rescission and replacement of the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance CONSENT ACTION CALENDAR: June 17 26, 2025 January 27, 2026

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City currently operates under a local ordinance that imposes specific reporting and oversight requirements on police equipment. Five months aAfter the enactment of this ordinance, new state law under California AB 481 Chapter 12.8 establishesd a uniform reporting framework that fully meets the oversight objectives originally intended by the local ordinance. This overlap has led to duplicative reporting that unnecessarily burdens City staff, reduces officer availability, and complicates administration.

BACKGROUND
The Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance, adopted on May 11, 2021, aimed to strengthen local oversight, transparency, and accountability in the use of police equipment.

However, soon after its adoption, the state enacted AB 481 Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use (Chiu, 2021), which established a standardized statewide reporting framework for police equipment across the state within Chapter 12.8 (Sections 7070 to 7075) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code. Under Chapter 12.8, BPD must annually report:

1. A summary of how military equipment was used and for what purpose;

2. Any complaints or concerns received about such equipment;

3. Results of internal audits, any violations of the equipment use policy, and corrective actions taken;

4. Total annual costs for each equipment type, including acquisition, maintenance, and funding sources for the following year;

5. The quantity of each type of military equipment currently held; and

6. Any planned acquisitions and their quantities for the upcoming year.

While AB 481Chapter 12.8 excludes certain items such as batons and Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray, their use is already documented under BPD’s Use of Force Policy and made public via the City’s Transparency Hub, maintaining public accountability. As a result, the local ordinance has become redundant—duplicating state requirements, consuming staff resources, and complicating administrative processes without adding meaningful oversight.

PROPOSED CHANGES AND REASONING
It is proposed that the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance be rescinded and replaced in favor of adhering solely to the State-mandated reporting requirements established by AB 481Chapter 12.8. Eliminating the local ordinance will streamline reporting and remove redundant administrative requirements. This change will allow City staff to focus on higher- priority operational matters while maintaining robust oversight and transparency. The State law already incorporates the necessary reporting elements and even extends its scope to include additional equipment categories not specifically covered under the local ordinance, making the

Rescission and replacement of the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance CONSENT ACTION CALENDAR: June 17 26, 2025 January 27, 2026

local requirements duplicative and unnecessary. In essence, the proposed rescission reflects a practical alignment with State law, ensuring that local practices do not impose additional burdens where a comprehensive framework already exists.

The replacement ordinance would continue to require local reporting of specific instances of deployment and/or use of military equipment, but with more targeted definitions and requirements.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation to rescind the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance is based on the recognition that California AB 481Chapter 12.8 provides an adequate, statewide reporting framework that meets the intended goals of transparency and accountability.

Maintaining both the local ordinance and the state law creates redundancy that diverts valuable City resources from more pressing priorities. Aligning with the State-mandated reporting not only simplifies administrative procedures but also ensures consistency across jurisdictions. This approach supports effective governance by reducing unnecessary duplication, enhancing operational efficiency, and reinforcing the City’s commitment to progressive policy that is both practical and fiscally responsible. Relying on the State- mandated reporting ensures that BPD collects and publishes data that will allow them to compare their work with other agencies, support transparency and balance oversight with fiscal responsibility, administrative burden and best allocation of limited personnel resources.

The City will continue to make information about police equipment and use of force publicly available, ensuring that rescinding the ordinance does not reduce public transparency or oversight.

FISCAL IMPACTS
No significant additional expenditures are anticipated as a result of these revisions. The changes are expected to generate significant administrative efficiencies and may yield cost savings that can be redirected to other operational public safety needs.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Councilmember Mark Humbert
[email protected]

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

21. Ordinance

Rescission and replacement of the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance CONSENT ACTION CALENDAR: June 17 26, 2025 January 27, 2026

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###N.S.

Resolution Rescinding the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance WHEREAS, on May 11, 2021, the City Council adopted the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance (Ord. 7760-NS) to enhance local oversight, transparency, and accountability in the management of police equipment; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2021, California AB 481 was enacted, establishing a comprehensive statewide reporting framework for police equipment that fully satisfies the oversight objectives originally intended by the local ordinance; and
WHEREAS, maintaining both the local ordinance and the State-mandated reporting requirements results in duplicative reporting efforts that unnecessarily burden City staff and complicate administrative processes; and
WHEREAS, rescinding the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance will streamline reporting processes, eliminate redundant administrative tasks, and allow City staff to focus on higher-priority operational matters while maintaining robust oversight and transparency; and WHEREAS, the reporting framework mandated by AB 481 incorporates all necessary oversight elements and extends coverage to additional equipment categories not specifically addressed in the local ordinance, thereby rendering the local requirements superfluous; and WHEREAS, rescinding the local ordinance in favor of the State-mandated reporting framework supports effective governance, enhances operational efficiency, and reinforces the City’s commitment to progressive and fiscally responsible policy; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that:

1. The Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance (Ord. 7760-NS, enacted May 11, 2021) is hereby rescinded in its entirety and replaced by Ordinance NO. X,XXX-N.S. 2026, below.

2. The Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance (Ord. 7760-NS, enacted May 11, 2021) is hereby rescinded in its entirety.

3. The City shall adhere solely to the reporting requirements mandated by California AB 481 for police equipment oversight.

Rescission and replacement of the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance CONSENT ACTION CALENDAR: June 17 26, 2025 January 27, 2026

ORDINANCE NO. X,XXX-N.S.

RESCINDING ORDINANCE 7760-N.S. POLICE EQUIPMENT AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. Findings and Purpose
A. On May 11, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7760-NS, the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance, to enhance local oversight, transparency, and accountability in the management of police equipment.

B. On October 1, 2021, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481), establishing a comprehensive statewide framework for police equipment reporting and oversight.

C. The State-mandated requirements of AB 481 satisfies the objectives originally intended by the City’s local ordinance, while also extending oversight to additional categories of equipment not addressed by Ordinance No. 7760-NS.

D. The continued implementation of both the local ordinance and the State-mandated reporting requirements has resulted in duplicative administrative burdens and inefficiencies for City staff.

E. Rescinding Ordinance No. 7760-NS will streamline the City’s reporting processes, eliminate redundant tasks, and enable staff to focus on higher-priority operational responsibilities, while maintaining robust public transparency and accountability under State law.

F. The City Council finds that rescission of Ordinance No. 7760-NS is consistent with the City’s goals of effective governance, operational efficiency, and fiscally responsible policymaking.

Section 2. Rescission
Ordinance No. 7760-NS, known as the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance, is hereby rescinded in its entirety.

Section 3. Compliance with State Law
The City of Berkeley shall comply with all applicable provisions of California Assembly Bill 481 and any subsequent amendments thereto governing the acquisition, funding, use, and reporting of police equipment.

Section 4. Effective Date
This amendment shall become effective 30 days after adoption of this ordinance.

Section 5. Posting, Filing, and Publication Requirements

Rescission and replacement of the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance CONSENT ACTION CALENDAR: June 17 26, 2025 January 27, 2026

Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr.

Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

ORDINANCE NO. X,XXX-N.S.

RESCINDING AND REPLACING ORDINANCE 7760-N.S. POLICE EQUIPMENT AND

COMMUNITY SAFETY ORDINANCE WITH THE POLICE EQUIPMENT ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. Findings
A. On May 11, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7760-NS, the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance, to enhance local oversight, transparency, and accountability in the management of police equipment.

B. On October 1, 2021, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481), establishing a comprehensive statewide framework for police equipment reporting and oversight, codified in Chapter 12.8 (Sections 7070 to 7075) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code (hereafter referred to as Chapter 12.8).

C. The State-mandated requirements of AB 481Chapter 12.8 satisfy the objectives originally intended by the City’s local ordinance, while also extending oversight to additional categories of equipment not addressed by Ordinance No. 7760-NS.

D. The continued implementation of both the local ordinance and the State-mandated reporting requirements has resulted in duplicative administrative burdens and inefficiencies for City staff.

E. Rescinding Ordinance No. 7760-NS will streamline the City’s reporting processes, eliminate redundant tasks, and enable staff to focus on higher-priority operational responsibilities, while maintaining robust public transparency and accountability under State law.

F. The City Council finds that rescission and replacement of Ordinance No. 7760-NS is consistent with the City’s goals of effective governance, operational efficiency, and fiscally responsible policymaking.

Section 2. Rescission
Ordinance No. 7760-NS, known as the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance, is hereby rescinded. in its entirety and replaced by Ordinance No. X,XXX-N.S. Police Equipment Ordinance

Rescission and replacement of the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance CONSENT ACTION CALENDAR: June 17 26, 2025 January 27, 2026

Section 3. Compliance with State Law
The City of Berkeley shall comply with all applicable provisions of California Assembly Bill 481 Chapter 12.8 (Sections 7070 to 7075) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code and any subsequent amendments thereto governing the acquisition, funding, use, and reporting of police equipment.

Section 4. Effective Date
This amendmentordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption and its provisions shall apply to the 2025 report due in March 2026 and to all subsequent reports.

Section 5. Posting, Filing, and Publication Requirements Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr.

Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Chapter 2.100 POLICE EQUIPMENT AND COMMUNITY SAFETY ORDINANCE of the Berkeley Municipal Code is repealed and replaced in its entirety with the following revised ordinance
Section 4. Chapter 2.100 POLICE EQUIPMENT ORDINANCE

2.100.010 Name of Ordinance
(A)This Ordinance shall be known as the Police Equipment Ordinance. (Ord. XXXX-NS § X, 2026)

2.100.020 Purposes of Ordinance
(A) The purposes of this ordinance are to:
(1) Restate requirements for the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) to produce policies and reports regarding the acquisition, funding, deployment, and use of covered Military Equipment.
(2) Ensure ongoing consistency between local and State requirements with respect to Military Equipment policies, acquisition, funding, and reporting. (3) Avoid duplication of reporting and other effort by the Berkeley Police Department and the Police Accountability Board (PAB).
(4) Ensure that local requirements remain in place in the event State-level requirements established by Assembly Bill 481 Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use (Chiu, 2021) (“AB 481” hereafter)Chapter 12.8 (Sections 7070 to 7075) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code are rescinded or struck down. (5) Specify how local requirements differ from State-level requirements.

Rescission and replacement of the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance CONSENT ACTION CALENDAR: June 17 26, 2025 January 27, 2026

(6) Clarify roles and timelines with respect to BPD provision of AB 481Chapter 12.8 documents, the Police Accountability Board, the PAB’s involvement in effectuating AB 481Chapter 12.8.

2.100.030 Local consistency with California State standards (A) All provisions of AB 481Chapter 12.8 (Sections 7070 to 7075) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code, including definitions, reporting requirements, policy requirements, review by elected officials, public meetings, and all other provisions, is hereby incorporated into the Berkeley Municipal Code by reference. (1) In the event that AB 481Chapter 12.8 and/or its requirements are amended/altered by the State Legislature or by a court whose jurisdiction covers Berkeley, those revisions shall also be incorporated by reference; this includes amendments made to the original statute or new statutes that may add to the requirements of AB 481Chapter 12.8.
(B) The Berkeley Police Department shall be responsible for fulfilling the requirements and provisions of AB 481Chapter 12.8.
(C) The policies and reports produced in compliance with AB 481Chapter 12.8 (or requirements amended/established by successor legislation) by the Berkeley police department shall serve to meet these local reporting requirements. (1) In no event shall this ordinance be interpreted to require BPD to produce multiple versions of the policies/reports required by AB 481Chapter 12.8.

2.100.040 Additional City of Berkeley Standards
(A) Subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance, the Berkeley Police Department’s Policy 300 (or any successor policy) shall maintain any necessary provisions governing the reporting of instances of Military Equipment Use and/or deployment.

2.100.050 Timelines and Police Accountability Board Role (A) The Berkeley Police Department shall make all AB 481Chapter 12.8 policy and reporting documents available to the public and the Police Accountability Board no less than 30 days prior to the Berkeley Council Meeting where they will be considered for acceptance.
(B) The Police Accountability Board may review and provide comments on AB 481Chapter

12.8 policy and reporting documents.
(C) Police Accountability Board review is not required for the Berkeley City Council to accept and/or approve AB 481Chapter 12.8 policy and reporting documents (D) The Agenda and Rules Subcommittee of the Berkeley City Council may, at its discretion, provide additional time for the Police Accountability Board to complete its review of AB 481Chapter 12.8 documents before agendizing City Council review of such documents.

2.100.060 Additional Reporting

Rescission and replacement of the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance CONSENT ACTION CALENDAR: June 17 26, 2025 January 27, 2026

(A) Police use of force (irrespective of whether it involved military equipment) shall continue to be reported in a manner consistent with Policy 300 (or a successor policy). (1) Any reporting on military equipment use shall include, at a minimum:
(i) The type of military equipment used;
(ii) The type and amount of munitions used (if applicable) (iii) Key outcomes from the military equipment use
(2) “Less lethal” weapons which fall outside of the definitions in AB 481Chapter 12.8 but are subject to reporting requirements established by Policy 300 must continue to be reported in a manner consistent with Policy 300 (or any successor policy).
(B) As part of its annual AB 481Chapter 12.8 reporting, the Berkeley Police Department shall report the deployment of military equipment on a limited basis, consistent with the following definition of “reportable deployment” below:
(1) Reportable deployment shall include instances where military equipment was pointed or aimed at an individual, group, or crowd in the context of a First amendment activity.
(2) Reportable deployment shall include instances in the context of a First amendment activity where an individual present would have reasonably believed that use of the military equipment was not merely possible, but imminent. (3) Reportable deployment shall not include the transport of military equipment. (4) Reportable deployment shall not cover any instance outside the context of a First amendment activity (for example, apprehension of an individual for which a judicial arrest warrant has been issued).

Section 5. Effective Date
This ordinance shall be effective upon the second reading and shall apply to the 2025 report and to all subsequent reports.

Section 6. Posting, Filing, and Publication Requirements Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr.

Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]

ACTION CALENDAR
January 27, 2025
To: Honorable Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Lunaparra (Author)

Subject: Creating Accessible Routes For Riders, Equity, and the Environment (CAR FREE): Budget Referral to Fund Limiting Cars on Telegraph Avenue

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $1,325,000 to the Long Range Development Plan and Measure FF funding processes to study limiting car access and develop pedestrian-centered design concepts for Telegraph Avenue between Bancroft Way and Dwight Way.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In 2020, Berkeley adopted its Vision Zero plan, committing to eliminating all traffic- related major injuries and fatalities. Tragically, there have been three pedestrian fatalities on average per year since 2020.1 District 7 has the highest concentration of injuries as a result of collisions, making it one of the most dangerous areas for traffic violence in Berkeley. In 2024, District 7 had 60 injury collisions within just .25 square miles, a density of 240 injuries per square mile, far exceeding every other district.

District Total driveable area (mi) Collision injuries 2024* Injuries per sq. mi. 7 0.25 60 240
4 0.72 98 136
3 0.9 83 92
1 1.55 101 65
2 1.55 97 63
8 0.98 57 58
5 1.52 33 22
6 1.88 31 16
*BPD transparency hub data
Although Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 experienced higher absolute collision injury rates in 2024, the highest risk concentration is in District 7. It is the densest, most populous, and 1https://www.berkeleyside.org/2025/06/24/berkeley-street-safety-vision-zero-measure- ff#:~:text=The%20city's%20Vision%20Zero%20Action,safety%20improvements%20on%20Marin%20Avenue.

Creating Accessible Routes For Riders, Equity, and the Environment (CAR FREE): Refer $1,325,000 to the Long Range Development Plan and Measure FF Funding Processes to Study Limiting Car Access and Develop Pedestrian-Centered Design Concepts for Telegraph Avenue
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] smallest geographic district, with the highest rate of households without access to a car.2 Additionally, there has been significant housing development in the Southside neighborhood over the last five years, with thousands of new beds planned over the next few years. It requires a coordinated response to meet the growing demand for safe streets. According to the Berkeley Police Department Transparency Hub, District 7’s high rate of traffic-related injuries is a common trend year-over-year.

In 2025, the City completed the Southside Complete Streets project, installing extensive traffic safety infrastructure, including Class IV bike lanes, accessible curb ramps, bus- only lanes, updated traffic signals phased for safety, raised crosswalks, and curb extensions. However, Telegraph Avenue, the site of the majority of traffic-related injuries in Southside, was removed from the project as a car-free design posed funding constraints. Although Telegraph has undergone repeated planning efforts to improve traffic safety, including a call to make it car-free as early as the 1960s,3 it remains the most dangerous street in District 7 for traffic violence; it is the only street in the district characterized as “High” on the historical collisions Heat Map on BPD’s Transparency Hub.4
To keep the dream of a car-free corridor alive, former Councilmember Robinson submitted supplemental material to remove Telegraph from the Southside Complete Streets project and separately refer it to staff to study limiting car access. It passed unanimously. However, the referral was buried and inadvertently left off the Reweighted Range Voting (RRV)5 list in 2023 and 2024.6 In spring 2025, when the District 7 office 2 The Southside has the lowest car ownership rate in the City of Berkeley; less than half of Southside households (48%) own cars compared to 81% of households in Berkeley. City of Berkeley draft 2011 Southside Plan https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Southside%20Plan.pdf. 3 Attachment 1
4 https://bpd-transparency-initiative-berkeleypd.hub.arcgis.com/pages/traffic-safety 5 RRV is Council’s process for prioritizing staff referrals, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RRV%20- %20March%2011%20PPT.pdf
6https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-04- 25%20Special%20Item%2001%202023%20City%20Council%20Referral.pdf, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-05- Telegraph
Ave.

Creating Accessible Routes For Riders, Equity, and the Environment (CAR FREE): Refer $1,325,000 to the Long Range Development Plan and Measure FF Funding Processes to Study Limiting Car Access and Develop Pedestrian-Centered Design Concepts for Telegraph Avenue
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] inquired about the status of the referral, it was added to the list for a Council vote.

Council subsequently ranked the referral highly, placing 6th out of 43 referrals and 4th among all public works referrals, demonstrating the Council’s ongoing commitment to the project. This budget referral aims to identify and secure the necessary funding to ensure the 2022 staff referral is adequately funded.

District 7 is uniquely positioned to become a citywide model for pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-centered design. With the majority of residents living without cars, investments in a safer, people-centered public realm would directly benefit the most significant number of vulnerable road users in our city. Given the City’s considerable investment in new street safety infrastructure through Measure FF and the concurrent safety upgrades in the area, this is a prime moment to request the long-overdue funding to move this project forward.

BACKGROUND
In 2022, local organizers — led by students — began developing a dream design for a car-free Telegraph.7 This design comes as a result of years of community input, guided by five primary objectives:

1. Ensure dignity and safety for pedestrians

2. Improve bus reliability and speeds

3. Provide small businesses with space to thrive

4. Make Telegraph a destination and strengthen its public realm

5. Save the climate and our lungs
With these tenets in mind, a diverse group of organizers came together to design a car- free Telegraph. The street design is intended to facilitate user behavior by widening sidewalks, narrowing the street to a single bus lane, and creating public space for gathering. The design features a bus lane to improve transit times and Southside bus service, bioswells for rainwater capture, streetscaping to discourage private vehicle use while providing access for pedestrians and cyclists, parklets with outdoor seating, dedicated loading zones for small businesses, and elevated bus stops to enhance safety, increase visibility, and retain sidewalk space. Feasibility, environmental, and traffic studies are required to begin the project’s design phase. Still, these mockups reflect significant community feedback and input, as well as a schematic overview to guide staff. Our office requested that staff use these designs as a reference for calculating the project’s cost. The following slides are examples of possible design features from the high-level overview published by Telegraph for People in 2022. 14%20Item%2026%202024%20City%20Council%20Referral%20Prioritization%20Process%20Using%20Re- Weighted%20Range%20Voting%20%28RRV%29.pdf
7 https://www.telegraphforpeople.com/option-five

Creating Accessible Routes For Riders, Equity, and the Environment (CAR FREE): Refer $1,325,000 to the Long Range Development Plan and Measure FF Funding Processes to Study Limiting Car Access and Develop Pedestrian-Centered Design Concepts for Telegraph Avenue
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] Installing bioswales significantly boosts our resilience to climate change by effectively capturing and absorbing rainwater. More outdoor seating fosters economic vibrancy, supports small businesses, and provides public gathering spaces, which have decreased in Southside in recent years
Drawing: Brandon Yung
A dedicated bus lane will improve transit times and can be accessed by emergency response vehicles Drawing: Brandon Yung
High-level designs reflect significant community feedback and serve as a reference for City staff Drawing: Brandon Yung
These designs were born of the significant community feedback from those who frequent the Telegraph corridor. The completion of Southside Complete Streets, the design and engineering progress on the Telegraph Multi-Modal plan, and a decade-long commitment to closing the right-turn slip lane at Dwight and Telegraph to create a public

Creating Accessible Routes For Riders, Equity, and the Environment (CAR FREE): Refer $1,325,000 to the Long Range Development Plan and Measure FF Funding Processes to Study Limiting Car Access and Develop Pedestrian-Centered Design Concepts for Telegraph Avenue
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] plaza have all set the stage for a car-free Telegraph. This initiative has been in the making for over six decades and is now poised to significantly enhance the experiences of all who live, work, study, and visit Southside.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
1963
In 1963, the Berkeley City Council considered reconstructing the Telegraph corridor under the Federal Urban Renewal Program.8 The historical disinvestment in and near Telegraph rendered it eligible for Urban Renewal funding. The goal of the study was to “recognize the demand for pedestrian circulation and for bicycle and automobile circulation and make balanced provision for each within the limited public right-of-way available,” and that “study should be given to the feasibility of converting Telegraph Avenue to a pedestrian mall, to a one-way street, or to a limited traffic street…”.9 In 1963 and ‘64, consultants reported their findings from a traffic study and economic analysis that measured the feasibility of a pedestrian mall.10 Ultimately, the consultant provided three reasons why the proposed pedestrian-mall design was not recommended:

1. It would limit parking

2. Not enough evidence demonstrated that pedestrian malls were lucrative

3. The new perimeter roads that would be built as a result of pedestrianization would separate new commercial areas
Still, staff and consultants struggled to find an alternative that would balance residents’ mobility needs, ultimately leading to an interim compromise: Convert Telegraph Avenue into a Northbound one-way street with widened sidewalks and parking bays and convert Dana Street into a Southbound one-way.11
8 The Urban Renewal Program was a federal initiative under the guise of addressing urban decay and blight in cities across the country. It was a flawed, racist, and classist program that displaced millions of people and destroyed homes, businesses, and communities. We provide the context under which the Telegraph pedestrian-mall project was initially planned to offer additional, nuanced rationale for why residents were skeptical of the proposed project. We also share this to impart the value of a car-free Telegraph and its disaggregation from the harmful legacy of Urban Renewal. 9 Attachment 1
10 Attachment 1
11 Attachment 2

Creating Accessible Routes For Riders, Equity, and the Environment (CAR FREE): Refer $1,325,000 to the Long Range Development Plan and Measure FF Funding Processes to Study Limiting Car Access and Develop Pedestrian-Centered Design Concepts for Telegraph Avenue
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] Telegraph Avenue between Bancroft Way and Durant Avenue, Berkeley, CA, during construction, turning Telegraph into a one-way street, 197012 This interim solution, presented as temporary and constructed in 1970, is what we have to this day. This snapshot from 1968 perfectly captures the era's prioritization of cars and parking over all other considerations, driven by the outdated myth that building infrastructure for varying road users causes commercial decay. Today, informed by data on the environmental impact of cars, contemporary planning practices, and evidence on the conditions that create thriving commercial corridors, we recognize the critical value of pedestrian-, cyclist-, and public transit-centered infrastructure. 1992
In 1992, Mayor Loni Hancock formed a Mayor’s Task Force on Telegraph Avenue to evaluate the “physical and social problems” impacting the area. The goal of the task force was to ensure safety and advance cultural and commercial enrichment. The report included long-term goals for the street, including “a pedestrian street for a portion of Telegraph” because of its “unique attributes that make it perfect for consideration for a pedestrian street.”13 The report proposes an 8-week pilot to ensure the project was feasible ahead of substantial investment. This was 30 years after the first car-free Telegraph proposal, demonstrating the enduring power of pedestrianization as a tool for social equity and safety. The project never came to fruition. 1996
In the 1996 Southside Plan, the City identified Telegraph Avenue as a critical thoroughfare to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety, reduce automobile speeds, and enhance transit service. The plan proposed to achieve this through closing Telegraph to auto traffic north of Haste Street or banning cars on Bancroft at Telegraph.14 1983-2025
Telegraph Avenue has intermittently limited cars. December 2025 marked the 42nd year of the Telegraph Winter Holiday Streetfair, an annual multi-weekend craft market 12 https://www.instagram.com/p/C4tq_n8vVTM/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ== 13 Attachment 3
14https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Southside%20Plan.pdf

Creating Accessible Routes For Riders, Equity, and the Environment (CAR FREE): Refer $1,325,000 to the Long Range Development Plan and Measure FF Funding Processes to Study Limiting Car Access and Develop Pedestrian-Centered Design Concepts for Telegraph Avenue
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] that shuts the street down to vehicles. It has demonstrated the value of creating pedestrian-centered areas and the role it plays in supporting local businesses and promoting economic vibrancy.

The National rise and fall of the pedestrian mall
There has been concern that converting Telegraph into a pedestrian mall or pedestrian- only corridor could negatively affect businesses in the area. Since the rise and fall of the pedestrian mall in the ‘60s and ‘70s, extensive research has examined the factors that create a thriving pedestrian commercial corridor. Data suggests that pedestrian malls are most likely to succeed if they are located near a university, have access to public transportation, and are in areas with residential density, all features that District 7 possesses. Other regions with significant university presences have taken this approach with transformative results. In fact, Mayor Hancock’s 1992 Telegraph highlighted that the City of Berkeley representatives planned a trip to the Santa Monica pedestrian mall to study its efficacy and feasibility for Telegraph. The following are examples of effective and successful pedestrian malls with similar populations. ● Santa Monica, CA, home to UCLA, successfully revitalized its Third Street Promenade, a once-dead pedestrian mall, leading to the collection of 37.7% of the city’s total sales tax revenue.15
● Madison, WI’s expanded pedestrian mall pilot on State Street was a huge success, with 81% of visitors saying they were more likely to come to the area because of it.16
● Burlington, VT has a population of 45,000, but its pedestrian-only Church Street Marketplace attracts more than three million annual visitors.17 Not only would pedestrianizing Telegraph Avenue ensure the safety of its residents and visitors, but it also has the necessary criteria to become a destination. The idea of creating a car-free Telegraph was first studied 62 years ago. Since then, local leaders, students, and organizers have made multiple attempts to finally address one of Berkeley's most dangerous streets for traffic violence. This is the time to do it.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Given the significant structural general fund deficit, it is most fiscally responsible to seek funding from alternative sources. Staff should prioritize funding sources most relevant to the prospective project, namely, from LRDP and Measure FF funds. We have identified these sources of funding as they most appropriately relate to the project’s goal.

Relevant LRDP funds must be used on projects within a ½ mile of the main campus boundaries and should directly address the needs of students and residents in the area, both of which this project accomplishes. Measure FF funds are restricted to street and sidewalk improvements, with specific funds designated for safety improvements.

The Public Works Department has prepared the following cost projections:

Category Cost Range Notes
15https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248957016_Santa_Monica's_Third_Street_Promenade_the_failure_and_resurgence_of _a_downtown_pedestrian_mall, https://www.nlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/CS_PedestrianReport_Final_WEB.pdf 16 https://www.cityofmadison.com/news/2025-03-26/planning-division-issues-report-on-state-street-pedestrian-mall-experiment 17 https://www.nlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/CS_PedestrianReport_Final_WEB.pdf

Creating Accessible Routes For Riders, Equity, and the Environment (CAR FREE): Refer $1,325,000 to the Long Range Development Plan and Measure FF Funding Processes to Study Limiting Car Access and Develop Pedestrian-Centered Design Concepts for Telegraph Avenue
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] Feasibility +
CEQA/NEPA + TIA $350,000 – $500,000
Environmental review, traffic analysis, utility
scan/third party
Public Outreach $125,000 – $175,000 Workshops, merchants/TBID, UCB, ACT High-Level Design $480,000 – $650,000 Alternatives, layouts, utility conflict matrix Final Design
(60/90/100%) $600,000 – $700,000
Arch., civil, geotech, electrical, traffic, transit,
stormwater, GI, bid package
Construction &
Implementation $12M – $17M
Paving, utilities, lighting, landscaping,
CM/inspection
This item requests funding only to complete the first three rows of the project; however, it is essential to present the estimates for the final design, construction, and implementation to provide a clear picture of the scope of the entire project. For future phases, we hope to leverage county, state, and federal transportation funds as needed.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Reducing reliance on cars offers essential benefits. Cars are the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions in our city. Limiting car use while building infrastructure to support transit, biking, and walking will lower our collective carbon footprint and make our environment more resilient.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Economic Analysis of Telegraph Avenue Pedestrian Mall, 1964

2. Planning Report on Telegraph Avenue Pedestrian Mall, 1968

3. Mayor’s Taskforce Report on Telegraph Avenue, 1992

4. Southside Complete Streets Project Conceptual Designs, Supplemental Agenda Material 1, 2022

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, 510-981-7170
Sara Cerami, Chief of Staff

Riches Research Tne
1944 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 326-8732

BUSINESS ECONOMICS MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION URBAN PLANNING Economic Analysis

SOUTH CAMPUS AREA
Berkeley, California

L VICTOR RICHES

LOUIS BINO
JOHN W. CONE
DR MELVIN E. MEMICHA

OR FRANK MEISSNER

ALBERTO RIVAS

RICHARD V STAUFFER
BEN H. TANNER

DONALD R WILLIAMS
Prepared For
Urban Renewal Agency
City of Berkeley Calf
January 1964
CS Scanned with CamScanner
REPRESENTATIVES IN. AUSTRALIA PHILIPPINES JAPAN EUROPE MEXICO ARGENTINA

1. Section 3

RECOMMENDATIONS
A mall for Telegraph Avenue. A field trip to the mall in Pomona's Central Business District and a review of data on other malls indicates that the mall by iteelf is not a solution to a shopping district's problems. The effective malls have been integrated parts of long range, comprehensive programs initiated and supported by the merchants of the shopping district.

More important than the mall itself are the provisions of adequate access and parking, a unified merchants' program for common advertising and shopping district development, and a concept of the purposes of the mall and specifically how it is to be used.

Where these prerequisites have occurred, the mall can be an additional stimulus to sales and is perhaps the most dramatic way for an older shopping district to show its customers that it is interested in its own future and is concerned with making shopping for its customers a more leisurely, comfortable, and interesting experience.

A landscaping program in which considerable parking is
retained on the main street and attractive landscaping, fountains, and benches are provided has been developed in the California Avenue Shopping District in Palo Alto and recently on Washington Street in Downtown Oakland. The Palo Alto partial mall has been very successful.

It is recommended that a landscaping program be established on Telegraph Avenue. A partial mall will definitely enhance the attractiveness of the District and encourage the merchants to improve the appearance of the stores and shops in the District. The conversion of Telegraph Avenue to a full mall is not recommended because:
(1) The District's area is severely limited and the conversion of the Avenue to a mall would require replacement of the access and parking which would be eliminated. It will be difficult enough to obtain adequate access and parking
under any circumstances.
(2) There is no indication that the mall would cause a substantial increase in sales without the provision of adequate access, parking, and other programs.

CS Scanned with CamScaner

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 기
(3) The merchants' organization has not yet established a pattern in which the advantages of a mall can be clearly used to aid the district.
(4) A new street(s) will separate the district's expansion areas from the main group of shops and stores. Also, only 50 per cent of the stores can provide new rear entrances.

It is further recommended that the design of access to the district and parking structures provide sufficient flexibility so that when there is a real need, the merchants will be prepared for it, and alternative circula- tion routes and parking can be provided so that portions of all of Telegraph Avenue could be converted to a mall. (Section F)
A small specialty department store. The Sather Gate Shopping District is particularly strong in its apparel and specialty shops. Its primary lack at the present time is a small (i.e., 20,000 to 40,000 square feet) somewhat ex- clusive specialty department store which could complement and expand the existing character of the district. The opportunities for a store of this type seem particularly promising because of the character of the district, the lack of such facilities in the city or in surrounding cities, and the large pro- portion of general merchandise sales which are being made outside of Berkeley. (Table C-9 and Field Interview)
The proposed new street and parking structures to the east and west of the Shopping District should be very careful to minimize the separation of the stores and shops along Bancroft Way from the main group of stores along Telegraph Avenue. The District's primary areas of expansion are east and west in the blocks between Durant and Bancroft. Therefore, it is critical to maintain as much continuity between these areas and the stores and shops along Telegraph Avenue as possible. (Figure 6)
Focal buildings at each end of the District. At present, the main attractions of the Sather Gate Shopping District are along Bancroft Way, the northerly two blocks of Telegraph Avenue, and the Student Union complex on campus.

It would be very desirable to complement these existing buildings with major new, multi-story commercial and office buildings at each end of Telegraph Avenue within the Sather Gate Shopping District. These new buildings would define the District and would provide customers with identification which emphasizes the extent of the District. (Figure 2)
Apartments should be designed so that they can be used either by a single student, a pair of students, or a student and his wife. Furnished apartments should be provided at $100 to $130 per month for one bedroom units, a figure which can increase to $120 to $150 per month by 1980.
(Page B-14, Table 2)
The intensity of development in the Project Area will be quite high as indicated by the existing residence halls. Therefore, it is recommended that the zoning of the Project Area encourage towers and open space and a considered relation- ship between towers in order to retain as many amenities as possible.

It is recommended that landscaped pedestrian walkways be provided through the middle of the blocks on either side of Telegraph in order to accommodate the increased pedestrian traffic (mostly students) which must pass through the Shopping District.

CS Scanned with CamScanner

Section F

EFFECTS OF A MALL
A landscaped, attractive mall is the most dramatic recent development in shopping districts. It provides a fresh new appearance, it makes it possible for the customersto walk from the stores on one side to the stores on the other without crossing traffic or being concerned about their children, and it encourages a more leisurely and enjoyable shopping trip for the customer. However, the mall is not a program in itself.

Where it has been successful, such as in Pomona, it has been one step in a long range improvement program undertaken by the merchants of a shop- ping district in cooperation with the city.

The Pomona Mall. The Pomona Mall includes 98 stores. It has now been in operation for nearly fifteen months (since October 1962). It is unquestionably successful as indicated by several statistics.

Two major new buildings have been constructed and a third is planned. Already constructed are a new $4 million quality department store and a $2.5 million seven story office building.

The number of vacant stores on the mall have been reduced from 26 to 6.
38 stores have been remodeled.

The number of pedestrians on the mall have increased by 79 per cent on comparable days since the mall opened.

Taxable sales for the mall stores increased by 42 per cent (for a comparable period) since the mall opened according to a special tabulation by the State Board of Equalization.

Most of the increase in sales was due to new stores.-
These figures reflect not only the establishment of the mall, but also the other important contributors to the redevelopment program of the shopping district. Actually the program started in 1950 when the merchants recognized the potential threat of the then new shopping centers. They Also there is no indication what "normal" increase in sales could have been expected, or what the effect of the improved access, parking, cs.Scanlaad promotion by theraselvas would have been.

started a four pronged program: better access, increased parking, the mall, and common merchant advertising. They now have good access to the district, they have provided nearly 2, 700 parking spaces, they have constructed the mall and are using it as a means of promotion, they distribute a common shopping news, and they are planning for additional parking and a new monorail "sky lift" to help customers get around the large shopping district and perhaps to the nearby transportation and civic centers. In short, the mall is but one part of a comprehensive develop- ment program motivated and paid for by the merchants with the assistance of the city.

Discussions with the merchants indicated that by itself the mall is not particularly meaningful. More important are the provisions for adequate access and off-street parking. Perhaps most important is the fact that the merchants and the city are doing something to improve the downtown area. The mall has been described as the "biggest stage" in Southern California. It is used for dances, parades, exhibits and other activities. At present the mall is significantly unique that it is attracting interest from church and charitable groups which put on events. The merchants indicate that these events are better sales stimulators than their own activitiesand they are planning to acquire a portable stage, sound system, and extra lighting to make the mall more usable.

Experience with the mall brought forth the following observations:

Even though the mall is unusually long (2700 feet) they have not had any particular criticism from shoppers. They do plan to develop additional stores on some street ends so that the mall will appear to be only five blocks long instead of the nine original short blocks.

The mall has apparently reduced the difference in sales volume between a "corner" location and interior sites.

Stores which do not have back access to the parking lots have experienced sales growth even though they did not have access or signs to the nearby streets and parking areas.

The use of tractor trains to carry pedestrians in the mall from one location to another at 104 per ride was not successful.

Customers felt they were a vehicular intrusion into the pedestrian mall.

CS
F-2
Scanned with CamScanner

"It is essential to keep the mall spotlessly clean seven days a week. "2 The Pomona merchants have a specíal assessment charge of 25¢ per $100 assessed valuation to pay for maintenance costs.
"It is imperative to promote the mall continuously. Events must be carefully planned to attract people to the mall.

International Folk Dance Festival, Ancient Car shows, square dances, Moonlight Sales, etc. are all elements that proved popular in Pomona during the past year."The merchants
are establishing an ordinance to assess themselves to pay for promotional advertising and events.
"The mall is only one important segment of downtown. The entire downtown environment must be inviting to people. There must be attractive parking lots, convenient ways to reach them, clean well-lighted and well-maintained streets and well-maintained stores and buildings."
יי
The construction of the mall can be accomplished without adversely affecting or interfering with business. Particular care has to be given to protecting the small merchants who do not have direct access to the rear parking lots.

The provision for rear parking lots and the location of the main access from the rear requires the improvement of the backs of the buildings, additional signs, check stands at both ends of the stores with back entrances, and the construction of special trash bunkers. In Pomona the bunkers are attractively designed and contribute to the appearance of the parking lot. They require some merchants to carry their trash as far as a block (200 to 300 feet); so far haveso far there been no objections.

The increase in foot traffic at the rear of the stores has not decreased the foot traffic on the mall.

The mall cost about $270 per lineal foot.

The major activity in the mall is still in the center. However, the construction of the department store at one end and a new complex of commercial buildings at the other end is expected to encourage fuller use of the entire mall.
1/ Memo by city administrative staff titled, "Brief Highlights of Progress in the City of Pomona...,"dated August 1, 1963.

CS
F-3
Scanned with CamScanner

There is a need to provide a closure to the mall at each end. Even the placing of a temporary tent gave a more
definite form to the mall. The value of "terminal" stores at each end of the mall is evident.

Other cities which have established permanent shopping district malls include Miami, Florida; Kalamazoo, Michigan; Knoxville, Tennessee; and Ottawa, Canada. It is reported that over 100 cities have considered or are planning to construct malls. A number of cities have attempted temporary malls and have discarded them. In general it appears that the other successful malls have had the same characteristics as the Pomona mall. These include a long term, comprehensive plan, adequate access, convenient parking, and merchant stimulation and participation.

The California Avenue Partial Mall. The merchants of California Avenue in Palo Alto with the cooperation of the city have developed a partial mall which has been very successful. Instead of the full mall treatment, they have provided fountains, landscaping, and special lighting while retain- ing a major portion of the parking on the main street. However, the street is much wider than 2nd street in Pomona or Telegraph Avenue. In this case, the improvements on California Avenue are part of a comprehensive program which has included improved access, increased parking, joint merchant programs, and merchant initiative and participation.

A similar type of partial mall has recently been constructed on Washington Street in downtown Oakland.

A Telegraph Avenue Mall. A mall on Telegraph Avenue would be a distinct advantage especially between Bancroft and Channing where the pedestrian traffic is so great. The obvious disadvantages of the mall are the loss of parking spaces (particularly critical where there are so few) and the loss of access (particularly critical where there are no obvious alternatives if Telegraph Avenue is converted). While streets can be developed to the rear of the commercial properties along Telegraph Avenue, the available space is limited and expensive to acquire, the competition for space between stores, access streets, and parking, is severe, and the new streets would separate the new commercial developments along Bancroft Way from the main grouping of stores along Telegraph. Non-physical disadvantages are that retail sales and activities in the Sather Gate Shopping District are increasing (therefore there is no incentive for a major change), and the merchants do not have a long established record of working together toward a comprehensive solution to their problems.

F-4
CS Scanned with CamScanner