MINISTERIAL W/
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Controlling FindingAll serving paths are within the ΔT threshold. Most constrained path: Ridge Road at 3.00 min (50% of the 6.00-min limit, 3.00 min remaining).
Analysis
A
Applicability Threshold
Minimum 15 dwelling units — integer comparison, no discretion
IN SCOPE — CONDITIONS APPLY
25 dwelling units proposed ≥ 15-unit threshold.
Project size threshold: 15 dwelling units
(ITE Trip Generation de minimis; SB 330, Gov. Code §65913.4). Since this project meets the applicability threshold, the evacuation clearance analysis (Criteria B and C) applies. If all criteria are met, pre-adopted standard conditions apply automatically — see Required Next Steps.
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
WITHIN THRESHOLD
78 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: 56
(units × 2.5 vpu × 0.90 NFPA 101 constant).
Effective capacity = HCM raw × 1.00 hazard degradation.
| Path | Bottleneck Segment | FHSZ Zone |
Eff. Cap (vph) | ΔT (min) | Threshold |
Margin | Result |
| 4 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 has 4 serving path(s). Max ΔT 3.0 min within threshold (6.00 min). Not in FHSZ (hazard_zone=non_fhsz) — no road degradation. Mobilization: 0.90 (NFPA 101 design basis, constant). Ministerial approval with standard conditions applied automatically. 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: MINISTERIAL WITH STANDARD CONDITIONS
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 is approved ministerially. The following pre-adopted, objective
conditions apply automatically by operation of law and local ordinance. No discretionary review
or public hearing is required. (Gov. Code §65589.4)
- Evacuation infrastructure impact fee — AB 1600 (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.).
If the city has adopted an evacuation infrastructure impact fee schedule pursuant to the
Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), the applicable fee is due at building permit issuance.
- Emergency vehicle access — local fire code (IFC §503).
The project shall maintain minimum fire apparatus access road width, vertical clearance,
and turning radii as required by the adopted local fire code throughout construction
and operation.
Legal Authority
Every numerical value in this determination is derived mechanically from the authorities below.
No engineering judgment was exercised. The same methodology is applied uniformly to all projects
under AB 747.
| # |
Authority |
Published / Adopted |
Parameter |
Value Applied |
| 1 |
AB 747, Gov. Code §65302.15 |
2021 Ch. 394 |
Analysis mandate |
— |
| 2 |
CAL FIRE OSFM FHSZ (state-adopted SRA map) |
Current SRA designation |
Hazard zone |
non_fhsz — Not in FHSZ |
| 3 |
NIST TN 2135 (Maranghides et al., Camp Fire) |
2021 |
Safe egress window (Non-FHSZ) |
120 min |
| 4 |
Standard engineering significance criterion |
— |
Maximum project share of egress window |
5% |
| → |
Derived from ③ × ④ |
ΔT threshold for this location |
120 × 0.05 = 6.00 min |
| 5 |
HCM 2022 Exhibit 12-7 (TRB 7th Ed.) |
TRB 2022 |
Road HCM base capacity (controlling: Ridge Road
Two-lane, 25 mph, 1 lanes) |
1,125 vph |
| 6 |
HCM 2022 Ex. 10-15/10-17 + NIST Camp Fire validation |
TRB 2022 / NIST 2021 |
Hazard capacity degradation (Non-FHSZ) |
1.00× |
| → |
Derived from ⑤ × ⑥ |
Effective bottleneck capacity |
1,125.0 vph |
| 7 |
NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, 2021 Ed. |
2021 |
Evacuation mobilization rate (design basis) |
0.90 (constant) |
| 8 |
U.S. Census ACS B25044 |
2020 5-yr |
Zero-vehicle household adjustment (~10%) |
Incorporated in NFPA 101 constant |
| → |
Formula result |
ΔT (marginal evacuation clearance time) |
3.00 min vs. 6.00-min limit |
Core Formula
ΔT = (project_vehicles / bottleneck_effective_capacity_vph) × 60 + egress_penalty
project_vehicles = 25 units × 2.5 vpu × 0.90 (NFPA 101 constant)
= 56 vph
egress_penalty = 0 (building < 4 stories)
Flagged when ΔT > 6.00 min (threshold = 120 min × 5%)
This determination applies the above authorities mechanically. No engineering judgment was
exercised. The same methodology is applied uniformly to all projects under AB 747.
Audit trail not available: determination_37_8760_n122_2600_25u.txt
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.