Berkeley City Council
February 10, 2026

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

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

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

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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