California Stewardship Alliance
City of Berkeley — Planning Department
Fire Evacuation Capacity Determination  ·  AB 747  ·  Gov. Code §65302.15
JOSH-2026-DOWNTOWN-MID-RISE-37_8695-n122_2685
Issued: 2026-04-03
85 dwelling units
Project
Downtown Mid-Rise — Shattuck Ave & Center St, Downtown Berkeley
85 dwelling units
6.0
Max ΔT (min)
6.00
Threshold (min)
DISCRETIONARY
REVIEW REQUIRED
Controlling FindingControlling finding: Adeline Street adds 6.04 min of marginal evacuation clearance time — 1.0× the 6.00-min threshold (120 min × 5%, Non-FHSZ, NIST TN 2135). Exceeds threshold by 0.04 min.

Analysis

A
Applicability Threshold
Minimum 15 dwelling units — integer comparison, no discretion
IN SCOPE
85 dwelling units proposed  ≥  15-unit threshold. Project size threshold: 15 dwelling units (ITE Trip Generation de minimis; SB 330, Gov. Code §65913.4).
B
Site Parameters
CAL FIRE FHSZ classification — sets road capacity degradation factor and ΔT threshold for clearance analysis
NON-FHSZ
Project site is not within a designated fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE HAZ_CLASS: 0, non_fhsz). No road capacity degradation applied (factor = 1.00×). Standard 120-min safe egress window applies.
Mobilization rate: 0.90 (NFPA 101 constant).
C
Evacuation Clearance Analysis
Route identification (0.5 mi radius) + per-path ΔT test — this is the operative determination step
EXCEEDS THRESHOLD
66 serving route segments within 0.5 mi (OSM evacuation route network).
ΔT threshold: 120 min safe egress window (NIST TN 2135, Non-FHSZ) × 5% max project share = 6.00 min
Project vehicles: 191 (units × 2.5 vpu × 0.90 NFPA 101 constant). Effective capacity = HCM raw × 1.00 hazard degradation.
PathBottleneck SegmentFHSZ Zone Eff. Cap (vph)ΔT (min)Threshold MarginResult
proj_259581502_2644106915Adeline Street
Multi-lane · 25 mph · 1 ln → HCM 1,900 × 1.00 = 1,900 vph
Non-FHSZ1,9006.046.00+0.04CONTROLLING
proj_259581502_2644106917Adeline Street
Multi-lane · 25 mph · 1 ln → HCM 1,900 × 1.00 = 1,900 vph
Non-FHSZ1,9006.046.00+0.04⚠ EXCEEDS
proj_259581502_529823596321559
Fwy · 45 mph · 1 ln → HCM 2,250 × 1.00 = 2,250 vph
Non-FHSZ2,2505.106.00−0.90✓ within
proj_259581502_529823636321559
Fwy · 45 mph · 1 ln → HCM 2,250 × 1.00 = 2,250 vph
Non-FHSZ2,2505.106.00−0.90✓ within
proj_259581502_530134806321559
Fwy · 45 mph · 1 ln → HCM 2,250 × 1.00 = 2,250 vph
Non-FHSZ2,2505.106.00−0.90✓ within
3 additional path(s) within threshold — omitted for brevity. See full audit trail.
SB 79 Transit Proximity
Transit stop within 0.5 mi — does not affect this determination
INFORMATIONAL

Determination

DETERMINATION  →
Project meets the 15-unit applicability threshold and 2 serving path(s) exceed the ΔT threshold of 6.00 min (max ΔT: 6.0 min). Not in FHSZ (hazard_zone=non_fhsz) — no road degradation. Mobilization: 0.90 (NFPA 101 design basis, constant). Discretionary review required. Legal basis: AB 747 (California Government Code §65302.15) — General Plan Safety Element mandatory update for evacuation route capacity analysis; HCM 2022 (Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition) — effective capacity with hazard degradation; NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code) — 0.90 mobilization design basis (100% occupant evacuation, adjusted for ~10% zero-vehicle households per Census ACS B25044); NIST TN 2135 (Maranghides et al.) — safe egress windows by hazard zone.
Wildland Evacuation Analysis: DISCRETIONARY
SB 79 Transit Proximity (Informational): NOT_APPLICABLE
Legal authority: AB 747 (California Government Code §65302.15) — General Plan Safety Element mandatory update for evacuation route capacity analysis; HCM 2022 (Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition) — effective capacity with hazard degradation; NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code) — 0.90 mobilization design basis (100% occupant evacuation, adjusted for ~10% zero-vehicle households per Census ACS B25044); NIST TN 2135 (Maranghides et al.) — safe egress windows by hazard zone

Required Next Steps

This project requires discretionary review under AB 747 (Gov. Code §65302.15). The objective standards analysis has determined that this project would add more than 6.00 minutes of marginal evacuation clearance time (ΔT) on one or more serving evacuation paths in hazard zone non_fhsz (maximum ΔT: 6.04 min vs. 6.00-min threshold).

ΔT exceedance identified on 2 path(s): Path proj_259581502_2644106915 — bottleneck: Adeline Street (ΔT 6.0 min vs 6.00-min threshold); Path proj_259581502_2644106917 — bottleneck: Adeline Street (ΔT 6.0 min vs 6.00-min threshold)

  1. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) required under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code §21100) — evacuation clearance time impact must be analyzed as a significant transportation impact.
  2. Evacuation Clearance Time Analysis: Applicant shall commission a study conforming to the JOSH v3.4 ΔT methodology (AB 747 / Gov. Code §65302.15), analyzing marginal evacuation clearance time on all serving paths within 0.5 miles, using NFPA 101 design basis mobilization rate (0.90 constant) and HCM 2022 hazard-degraded capacity factors.
  3. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is required prior to any project approval (Gov. Code §65905).
  4. Fire Department Review: Submit project plans to the Fire Marshal for review of evacuation access, egress widths, and compliance with Fire Code §503.
  5. Mitigation Measures or Project Redesign: Applicant must demonstrate — through the clearance time analysis — either (a) that mitigation measures reduce ΔT below 6.00 minutes on all serving paths, or (b) that the project scope (units, stories, or both) is reduced to fall within the ΔT threshold, to qualify for ministerial review.
  6. Approval is not ministerial until the ΔT exceedance is mitigated or the project is redesigned to fall within the ΔT threshold on all serving evacuation paths.

Legal Authority

Appeal Rights

This determination is the result of an objective, algorithmic analysis under adopted city standards. All inputs, calculations, and threshold comparisons are recorded in the attached audit trail and are fully reproducible.

An applicant who disagrees with this determination may appeal within 10 business days of the date of this letter to the City of Berkeley Planning Commission. The appeal must identify a specific factual error in the data inputs or threshold parameters. Engineering judgment is not a basis for appeal — these are objective standards.

For questions, contact the Planning Department. Reference the case number on this letter.