Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 45 electricity from renewable energy sources. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies of the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, and the City’s CAP, and impacts would be less than significant.
3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects related to GHG emissions would occur and no new mitigation measures are required.
4. Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
H. Hazard and Hazardous Materials
1. Impacts Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR
As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the 2023 HEU EIR, construction of development facilitated by the HEU could result in an increase in the overall routine, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in Berkeley. However, hazardous materials would be required to be transported under U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations (U.S.
DOT Hazardous Materials Transport Act, 49 Code of Federal Regulations). The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) also regulates hazardous waste under the authority of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter
6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Divisions 4 and 4.5). The 2023 HEU EIR found that portions of Berkeley are located in Environmental Management Areas (EMA) as identified by the City’s Toxics Management Division (TMD). As a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Berkeley, the TMD is responsible for identifying areas known or suspected to have groundwater contamination that could result in potential health and environmental impacts, and development in the EMA would require project review by the TMD prior to issuance of permits. Future development projects facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s Standard COA related to Environmental Site Assessments, Soil and Groundwater Management Plans, Building Materials Surveys, and Hazardous Materials Business Plans, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 46 The 2023 HEU EIR determined that operation of the HEU would not risk exposing the public to hazardous materials because residential uses do not typically use hazardous materials other than small amounts for cleaning and landscaping. Although the HEU would increase the number of residents near transportation corridors where hazardous materials may be routinely transported, as discussed above the transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the DOT.
Additionally, since the HEU would facilitate residential development within areas of Berkeley where hazardous materials could be stored or used, such as near mixed-use or industrial areas, the potential of residents being exposed to hazardous materials may be increased. However, future development would be required to adhere to the California Accidental Release Prevention (CAL ARP) program as required by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA)22, develop a Hazardous Materials Business Plan enforced by Berkeley’s TMD23, and adhere to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) established by Alameda County and the City of Berkeley,24 which aim to minimize community exposure to hazardous and potentially hazardous materials by avoiding toxic cleaning and building materials and products in civic facilities and services; providing information, opportunities, and incentives to the community for proper disposal of toxic materials; encouraging non-toxic materials and products in homes and businesses as an alternative to products containing potentially hazardous materials; and providing procedures to follow in the event of a spill. Compliance with these policies would further prepare the City, reduce the risk of spills, and protect the public in the event of an accidental spill or exposure.
Future development would also be required to comply with policies and programs in the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element, Environmental Management Element, and the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan such as Policies S-15, EM-12, EM-13, and EM-15, as well as Housing Element Programs 16, 21, 22, and 25, impacts would be less than significant.
The 2023 HEU EIR determined that although 122 housing inventory sites listed in the HEU would be located within a 0.25-mile radius of Berkeley’s existing schools and childcare facilities, impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials and exposure to these materials would be less than significant with adherence to the above-referenced State and local laws, regulations and plans. The 2023 HEU EIR stated that Berkeley has 361 documented sites containing or potentially containing hazardous materials contamination in underlying soil and/or groundwater that have not received regulatory closure. Development facilitated by the HEU could involve ground disturbance on sites where soil, soil vapor, or groundwater contamination is present such that hazardous materials are released, exposing construction workforce and nearby occupants to
22 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2023. California Accidental Release Prevention Program. https://calepa.ca.gov/california-accidental-release-prevention/ 23 Berkeley, City of. 2023. General Plan. Hazardous Materials Business Plan website. https://berkeleyca.gov/doing-business/operating- berkeley/hazardous-materials-business-plan
24 Berkeley, City of. 2019. General Plan. Local Hazard mitigation Plan. Adopted December 10, 2019. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-2019.pdf
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 47 hazardous materials. However, development near hazardous locations would be preceded by investigation, remediation (cleanup), and monitoring, as necessary, under the supervision of the City’s TMD, RWQCB, or DTSC before construction activities begin. Furthermore, if an unidentified underground storage tank (UST) is uncovered or disturbed during construction, it would be removed under permit, and potential risks due to residual contamination would be minimized by managing the site according to existing standards contained in Division 20, Chapters 6.7 and 6.75 (Underground Storage Tank Program) of the California Health and Safety Code as enforced and monitored by the City’s TMD. Similarly, if groundwater contamination is identified, characterization of the vertical and lateral extent of the contamination and remediation activities would be required by the RWQCB prior to the commencement of new construction activities that would disturb the subsurface. If contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, the developer would be required to undertake remediation prior to grading and development under the supervision of the RWQCB, depending upon the nature of identified contamination to levels that do not pose an unacceptable risk for the intended land use.
Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.
Development facilitated by the HEU also would be required to comply with Policy T-28 of the City’s General Plan which identifies actions for emergency access. Development would also be required to conform to the latest Fire Code requirements, including provisions for emergency access. Because there are no public or private airports within Berkeley, the 2023 HEU EIR determined that the HEU would not result in impacts related to safety hazards or excessive noise hazards within airport land use plan areas or in proximity to airports.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
Much of Specific Plan Area is within the City’s identified EMA, which includes areas known or suspected to have groundwater contamination issues. Additionally, a search of the DTSC’s EnviroStor database and the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database (conducted in May 2026), which contain information on properties in California where hazardous substances have been released or where the potential for release exists, identified one closed cleanup program site, seven open cleanup sites, 22 closed LUST sites, and three open LUST sites within the Specific Plan Area.
There are two active voluntary cleanup sites, 2371 San Pablo Avenue and 1625-1627 San Pablo Avenue and two closed state response sites, 2378/2366 San Pablo Avenue and 1138 Delaware Street within the Specific Plan Area. Future development of these two sites would be subject to DTSC oversight and regulation, City review, and other existing environmental laws related to cleanup of hazardous materials. Cleanup of the site would have to be certified as suitable for the intended land use by DTSC before new development could occur. Because development, including grading and excavation, would be contingent on cleanup of existing hazards on this site, no significant impacts related to hazardous materials would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 48 Similar to the HEU, development facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to the City’s Standard COA. With adherence to the City’s Standard COA, the City’s TMD would evaluate projects to determine if Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are required to characterize potential contamination. If contamination is present, applicants would be required to develop a soil and groundwater management plan, a type of construction management plan that would identify procedures for soil and groundwater management and disposal to address hazards during construction.
The proposed project would allow for development of up to 4,500 more units in the Specific Plan Area compared to the buildout analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR, and therefore would potentially involve transport, use, or dispose of more hazardous materials than what was analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR during construction, and would facilitate increased development on sites that are possibly contaminated and inactive, undergoing evaluation, and/or undergoing corrective action, where grading or excavation may result in the transport, disposal, and release of hazardous materials if they are discovered and removed from the site. However, future development would be required to comply with the same federal, State, and local laws and regulations as discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, such as DOT regulations (U.S. DOT Hazardous Materials Transport Act, 49 Code of Federal Regulations), California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California H&SC Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Divisions 4 and 4.5). Although the majority of the Specific Plan Area is within the City’s EMA, development within the EMA would be subject to project review by the TMD prior to issuance of permits. Future projects also would be subject to the City’s Standard COA regarding Environmental Sites Assessments, Soil and Groundwater Management Plans, Building Materials Surveys, and Hazardous Materials Business Plans, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Toxics. The applicant shall contact the Toxics Management Division (TMD) to determine which of the following documents are required and timing for their submittal:
A. Environmental Site Assessments
1. Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (latest ASTM 1527-13). A recent Phase I ESA (less than 6 months old) shall be submitted to TMD for developments for:
▪ All new commercial, industrial and mixed-use developments and all large improvement projects.
▪ All new residential buildings with 5 or more dwelling units located in the Environmental Management Area (or EMA).
▪ EMA is available online at: https://berkeleyca.gov/construction- development/permits-design-parameters/design-parameters/berkeley- requirements-building
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 49 2. Phase II ESA is required to evaluate Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) identified in the Phase I or other RECs identified by TMD staff. The TMD may require a third party toxicologist to review human or ecological health risks that may be identified.
The applicant may apply to the appropriate state, regional or county cleanup agency to evaluate the risks.
3. If the Phase I is over 6 months old, it will require a new site reconnaissance and interviews. If the facility was subject to regulation under Title 15 of the Berkeley Municipal Code since the last Phase I was conducted, a new records review must be performed.
B. Soil and Groundwater Management Plan
1. A Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) shall be submitted to TMD for all non- residential projects, and residential or mixed-use projects with five or more dwelling units, that: (1) are in the Environmental Management Area (EMA) and (2) propose any excavations deeper than 5 feet below grade. The SGMP shall be site specific and identify procedures for soil and groundwater management including identification of pollutants and disposal methods. The SGMP will identify permits required and comply with all applicable local, state and regional requirements.
2. The SGMP shall require notification to TMD of any hazardous materials found in soils and groundwater during development. The SGMP will provide guidance on managing odors during excavation. The SGMP will provide the name and phone number of the individual responsible for implementing the SGMP and post the name and phone number for the person responding to community questions and complaints.
3. TMD may impose additional conditions as deemed necessary. All requirements of the approved SGMP shall be deemed conditions of approval of this Use Permit.
C. Building Materials Survey
Prior to approving any permit for partial or complete demolition and renovation activities involving the removal of 20 square or lineal feet of interior or exterior walls, a building materials survey shall be conducted by a qualified professional. The survey shall include, but not be limited to, identification of any lead-based paint, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PBC) containing equipment, hydraulic fluids in elevators or lifts, refrigeration systems, treated wood and mercury containing devices (including fluorescent light bulbs and mercury switches). 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 California Code of Regulations 66260 et seq).
The Survey becomes a condition of any building or demolition permit for the project.
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. If asbestos is
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 50 identified, BAAQMD 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.
D. Hazardous Materials Business Plan
A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) in compliance with BMC Section 15.12.040 shall be submitted electronically at http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/. HMBP requirement can be found at https://berkeleyca.gov/doing-business/operating-berkeley/hazardous-materials-business- plan.
Similar to the HEU, the proposed project’s changes to the adopted HEU would facilitate the development of residential uses, which may involve use and storage of some materials considered hazardous, though these materials would be primarily limited to solvents, paints, chemicals used for cleaning and building maintenance, and landscaping supplies. However, the proposed project would also result in a decrease in 319,600 square feet of commercial uses, reducing the amount of hazardous materials used.
These materials would not be different from chemicals and solvents already in wide use throughout the Specific Plan Area, and the use of such products would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the disposal of household waste. New housing units would be located in an area near major transportation stations and existing residential and commercial development. Hazardous materials may be transported into and through the Specific Plan Area via San Pablo Avenue, and collector and local streets. The proposed project would increase the number of residents near transportation corridors where hazardous may be routinely transported compared to the HEU. However, as discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, compliance with existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations would reduce risks related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these materials. Therefore, impacts from a hazard to the public or the environment due to routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, or from accidental release or exposure to hazardous materials would be less than significant, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings.
Several streets in Specific Plan Area, such as San Pablo Avenue, University Avenue, Dwight Way, Ashby Avenue, Cedar Street, Hopkins Street and Gilman Street are designated as emergency access routes to move people and emergency response equipment in a.25 General Plan Policy T- 28 identifies actions for emergency access. These include not installing diverters or speed humps on streets identified as Emergency Access and Evacuation Routes. While the proposed project would increase the number of units in the Specific Plan Area by up to 4,500 units, and may result in increased traffic compared to the HEU, the designated access routes would continue to serve
25Berkeley, City of. 2011. General Plan. Berkeley Emergency Access and Evacuation Routes. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley-Emergency-Access-Evacuation-Routes-06-2011.pdf
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 51 as evacuation routes in the case of emergency. The proposed project includes incentives for developers to create pedestrian plazas by partially or fully closing minor side streets that intersect with San Pablo Avenue to vehicular traffic, while maintaining emergency access. However, prior to any streets being closed, the selected streets would be reviewed by the Fire and Public Works Departments to ensure that there are no significant emergency access or safety impacts.
Additionally, because the Specific Plan Area can be accessed by several designated access routes, and new development in the Specific Plan Area is anticipated to be distributed throughout the area, the traffic increase that would result from new development would not substantially impact one route and would be distributed among existing routes. Future development would be required to conform to the latest Fire Code requirements, including provisions for emergency access, and would not obstruct existing roadways or require the construction of new roadways or access points. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings.
The Specific Plan Area is not located within two miles of an airport and is not in the land use plan for the airport.26 There would be no impacts related to airport safety hazards for people residing or working in the Specific Plan Area.
The proposed project would increase the intensity/density of development along the San Pablo Avenue beyond what was evaluated in the 2023 HEU EIR and the level of impact may incrementally increase but not to the levels that will change the level of significance. Ground disturbance associated with development of new residential units would occur in the same areas as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR on sites in urbanized areas of the city. The same existing regulations and standard conditions of approval would apply. Potential impacts related to hazardous materials use, contaminated sites, and risk of release would be within those disclosed in the 2023 HEU EIR.
3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to hazards and hazardous materials, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COA requiring contacting the TMD and determining if Environmental Site Assessments, Soil and Groundwater Management Plans, Building Materials Surveys, and Hazardous Materials Business Plans, as referenced in the 2023 HEU EIR, would remain applicable.
26 Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2010. Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/OAK_ALUCP_122010_FULL.pdf
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 52 4. Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
I. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Impacts Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the 2023 HEU EIR, construction activities could cause soil erosion from exposed soil, and accidental release of hazardous materials used for equipment such as vehicle fuels and lubricant, or temporary siltation from storm water runoff. However, future development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with State and local water quality regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality during construction, such as requirements of the SWRCB Construction General Permit (CGP), which requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and BMPs for projects that disturb one acre or more of land. Should dewatering be necessary during construction, development projects would be subject to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R2-2012-0060, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge or Reuse of Extracted Brackish Groundwater, Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Resulting from Treated Brackish Groundwater, and Extracted Groundwater from Structural Dewatering Requiring Treatment (Groundwater General Permit). Development would also be required to comply with BMC Chapters 17.20, which would reduce construction- related water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
Development under the HEU and development resulting from the proposed project, would also be required to comply with the BMC and the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (No.
CAS612008). Development design would include BMPs to avoid adverse effects associated with stormwater runoff quality. The 2023 HEU EIR stated that development would also be required to implement LID Measures and on-site infiltration, as required under the C.3 provisions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). Provision C.3 requires projects that create and/or replace between 2,500 square feet and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface to install at least one of a menu of site-specific design measures to either redirect runoff into vegetated areas or to include design site features with permeable surfaces. Given the built-out character of the C-SP
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 53 Zoning District, projects would primarily consist of redevelopment of already urbanized parcels which include impervious surfaces, not development on vacant greenfield parcels.
In addition to Provision C.3, development would also be required to comply with Provisions C.6 (Construction Site Control), C.10 (Trash Load Reduction), and C.15 (Exempted Discharges) of the MRP, which would reduce operational water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
Similarly, with adherence to the NPDES Construction General Permit, NPDES MS4 General Permit, MRP, the Alameda County Clean Water Program, and the BMC, the 2023 HEU EIR found that development facilitated by the HEU would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or alter the course of a stream or river, not result in erosion or siltation, and not substantially increase the rate of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site or exceed capacity of a stormwater system. Impacts were found to be less than significant.
The 2023 HEU EIR determined that development facilitated by the HEU 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.
Compliance with the above-mentioned regulations would increase the potential for groundwater recharge, resulting in less than significant impacts to groundwater.
The 2023 HEU EIR noted that development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the following provisions within the BMC:
▪ Preservation and Restoration of Natural Watercourses – Chapter 17.08. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate: (1) building over or near culverted creeks; (2) building near open creeks; (3) the rehabilitation and restoration of natural waterways; and (4) the management of watersheds.
▪ Discharge Of Non-Stormwater Into The City's Storm Drain System--Reduction Of Stormwater Pollution – Chapter 17.20. This chapter provides the stormwater requirements for projects conducted within the City of Berkeley and is consistent with the requirements of the San Francisco RWQCB and the MRP permit. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Berkeley’s citizens by eliminating non- stormwater discharges to the City’s storm drain system and by reducing the contamination of stormwater by pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. ▪ Flood Zone Development – Chapter 17.12. The ordinance also ensures that property owners construct new and substantially improved buildings in the 100-year floodplain in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program’s goals to protect life and property. Section 500 of this chapter addresses standards of construction in special flood hazard areas. Section 530 addresses coastal high hazard areas vulnerable to future sea level rise.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 54 ▪ Grading, erosion and sediment control requirements – Section 21.40.270. This requires projects to comply with all grading, erosion and sediment control regulations on file in the Public Works Department.
As discussed in Section 4.9 of the 2023 HEU EIR, there are a few FEMA-designated 100-year Flood Hazard Areas throughout the city, particularly in the western portion of the city. However, development in Flood Hazard Areas would be required to comply with Chapter 17.12 of the BMC, which contains standards for construction in flood zones, as well as Policies S-26, S-27, and S-28 of the Berkeley General Plan, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
Similar to what was assumed in the 2023 HEU EIR, although development facilitated by the proposed project would occur on underutilized sites in previously disturbed areas, ground- disturbing activities would still have the potential to cause soil erosion from exposed soil, an accidental release of hazardous materials used for equipment such as vehicle fuels and lubricant, or temporary siltation from storm water runoff. If uncontrolled during construction, soil erosion and water pollutants could have adverse offsite effects on water quality. Although most future development projects in the Specific Plan Area would likely be on sites under one acre in size, future development projects that disturb more than one acre of land – for example, where lots are consolidated – would be required to comply with the requirements of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction Stormwater General Permit (CGP), which requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The SWPPP must include erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed measures required by the CGP, as well as those that control hydrocarbons, trash, debris, and other potential construction-related pollutants. Post-construction stormwater performance standards are also required to specifically address water quality and channel protection events.
In addition, future subdivisions would be required to comply with BMC Section 21.40.270, which contains regulations that govern the grading, erosion, and sediment control, and future development would be required to comply with BMC Chapter 17.20, which requires BMPs to be implemented to minimize non-stormwater discharges during construction. Additionally, as discussed in Hazard and Hazardous Materials, the Specific Plan Area is in the EMA, and all future non-residential projects as well as residential or mixed-use projects with more than four dwelling units that are in the EMA and include excavations deeper than 5 feet would also be required to prepare a site-specific Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP). Therefore, as with the HEU, construction-related water quality impacts would be less than significant.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 55 The Specific Plan Area is urbanized, largely consisting of impervious surfaces, including structures, parking lots, and roadways, with the exception of designated landscaped areas.
Therefore, future development would likely replace existing impervious surfaces and would not substantially increase the existing amount of impervious surfaces. Nonetheless, the proposed project would increase development potential and building height in the Specific Plan Area by up to 4,500 units, which could require deeper foundations and increase the likelihood of including underground parking. These features could, in turn, result in greater operational and dewatering- related water quality impacts compared to the HEU. However, as discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR with regard to the HEU, the proposed project would be required to comply with the same State and local regulations, such as the NPDES Permit; MRP, specifically Provision C.3, C.6, and C.15; and BMC regulations, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings.
The Specific Plan Area is urbanized, largely consisting of impervious surfaces, including structures, parking lots, and roadways. Stormwater runoff generated by new development or redevelopment under the proposed project would be collected by drainage inlets and conduits and conveyed to the San Francisco Bay, as under current conditions. There are no surface waters within the Specific Plan Area, and the Specific Plan Area is not located within a FEMA designated Flood Hazard Area.27 Site-specific drainage pattern alterations could be required for development facilitated by the proposed project, but such alterations would not result in substantial adverse effects. Because the Specific Plan Area is already largely covered with impervious surfaces, development under the proposed project would not introduce substantial new impervious areas to the extent that the rate or amount of surface runoff would substantially increase, would not introduce substantial new surface water discharges, and would not result in flooding on- or off- site. Regulated projects within the Specific Plan Area must treat 80 percent or more of the volume of annual runoff for volume-based treatment measures or 0.2-inch per hour for flow- based treatment measures. Furthermore, projects that create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface must implement site design measures to reduce stormwater runoff.
All regulated projects within the Specific Plan Area would also be required to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that includes the post-construction BMPs that control pollutant levels pursuant to BMC Chapter 17.20. SWMPs would be reviewed by the City of Berkeley prior to the issuance of building permits. In areas of the city that have soils with low permeability and/or area with high water tables, which may include portions of the Specific Plan Area, BMPs that do not rely on infiltration are most appropriate. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, this impact would be less than significant.
27 FEMA. Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 56 The proposed project would increase the intensity/density of development along the San Pablo Avenue beyond what was evaluated in the 2023 HEU EIR and the level of impact may incrementally increase but not to the levels that will change the level of significance. Potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be within those disclosed in the 2023 HEU EIR.
3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to hydrology and water quality, and no new mitigation measures are required.
4. Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
J. Land Use and Planning
1. Impacts Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR
As discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the 2023 HEU EIR, the HEU would have no impact regarding division of an established community because the HEU includes policies and programs to encourage housing development on underutilized and vacant sites and along established commercial corridors and neighborhoods. The HEU was determined to be consistent with the goals and strategies of Plan Bay Area 2050, as well as policies in the City’s General Plan and the BMC. As stated in Government Code Section 65589.5(a), the Legislature has concluded that “the lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” The HEU establishes policies and programs to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community. In addition, the sites inventory provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the RHNA through the year 2031, as established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), as well as efficiently utilize vacant, underutilized, and underdeveloped lots within the City to increase the supply of housing. Impacts were found to be less than significant.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 57 2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
Although the proposed project would allow for up to an additional 4,500 units in the Specific Plan Area, no new roads, linear infrastructure, or other development features are proposed that would divide an established community or limit movement, travel, or social interaction between established land uses. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, this impact would be less than significant.
The proposed project would include Zoning Ordinance text and map amendments, General Plan text and map amendments, the retirement of the West Berkeley Plan and the San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan and the adoption of the San Pablo Avenue Design Standards (SPADS).
As shown and described in the Project Description and Table 2 the proposed project would increase the intensity and density of development in the Plan Area by establishing a the Commercial-San Pablo (C-SP) Zoning District where height would be increased up to seven stories and 75’ and maximum density would be increased up to 4.25 FAR for mixed-use and residential developments and increased up to 145 and 150 dwelling units per acre for mixed-use developments and residential-only developments, respectively. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with zoning requirements for residential uses as described in Title 23, Zoning, of the BMC. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, the proposed project would be consistent with the BMC with adoption of the proposed project.
As mentioned in 2023-2031 Housing Eylement Update (HEU) Project Overview and Project Description, the Specific Plan Area is identified as a Priority Development Area (PDA) in Plan Bay Area 2050, a long-range regional plan, prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). PDAs are select areas with strong potential to support sustainable development patterns for housing and jobs in walkable, transit- oriented infill areas. As shown in Table 7 below the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in Plan Bay Area 2050.
TABLE 7 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH PLAN BAY AREA 2050
Measure Proposed Project Plan Bay Area 2050 Consistency Housing. Spur Housing Production for Residents of all Income Levels H3. Allow a greater mix of housing
densities and types in Growth
Geographies. Allow a variety of housing
types at a range of densities to be built
in Priority Development Areas, select
Transit-Rich Areas and Select High-
Resource Areas.
Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate up to 4,500 more units compared to the HEU in the Specific Plan Area, which is in a TPA. Specifically, AC Transit bus routes 72, 72L, 72M, 72R, and 802 are located along San Pablo Avenue. San Pablo Avenue is located within 0.5 mile of the Ashby BART station at its southern end and within 0.5 mile of the North Berkeley BART station at its northern end. The project area also includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities to facilitate walking and biking. This would further reduce reliance on personal vehicles and encourage usage of alternative modes of transport.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 58 Measure Proposed Project Plan Bay Area 2050 Consistency H5. Integrate affordable housing into
all major housing projects. Require a
baseline of 10-20% of new market-rate
housing developments of five units or
more to be affordable to low-income
households.
Consistent. Pursuant to Chapter 23.328 of the BMC, Inclusionary Housing, the City requires that new rental housing with five or more units must provide 20 percent of the units as below market rate units or pay the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee or provide some below market rate units and pay a prorated fee. Of the 20 percent below market rate units, half must be provided to low-income households, and half must be provided to very- low income households.
EN4. Maintain urban growth
boundaries. Using urban growth
boundaries and other existing
environmental protections, focus new
development within the existing urban
footprint or areas otherwise suitable for
growth, as established by local
jurisdictions.
Consistent. The project would facilitate increased development of housing on underutilized sites in Specific Plan Area, all within the incorporated City of Berkeley, which would reduce pressure to develop open space areas. By placing residents close to jobs, services, and alternative methods of transportation, the project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other criteria pollutants associated with vehicle use to help communities stay healthy and safe.
Source: Plan Bay Area 2050. ABAG. 2021.
Additionally, the HEU includes implementation programs to promote middle- and moderate- income housing and facilitate additional housing development along three of the City’s corridors, including San Pablo Avenue. Specifically, Program 27 calls for preparation of the “San Pablo Avenue Corridor PDA Specific Plan,” to evaluate opportunities to increase allowed densities and development capacity and to study design standards, public improvements, and mechanisms to incentivize affordable housing. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with other goals and policies outlined in the General Plan as outlined below in Table 8.
TABLE 8 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Measure Proposed Project General Plan Consistency
Land Use Element
Maintain and Preserve the Character of Berkeley
Policy LU-3 Infill Development. Encourage infill
development that is architecturally and
environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of
sustainable planning and construction, and is
compatible with neighboring land uses and
architectural design and scale.
Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate increased infill development on underutilized sites in order to increase density to accommodate a higher number of residents. Individual future projects would be subject to the City’s existing general development standards (BMC Chapter 23.304) to ensure that buildings are compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale.
Policy LU-4 Discretionary Review. Preserve and
enhance the aesthetic, environmental, economic,
and social character of Berkeley through careful land
use and design review decisions.
Consistent. Future development would be required to comply with General Plan land use and design review policies and processes, and discretionary review would be required for applicable projects.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 59 Measure Proposed Project General Plan Consistency
Maintain and Enhance Berkeley’s Residential Areas
Policy LU-9 Non-Residential Traffic. Minimize or
eliminate traffic impacts on residential areas from
institutional and commercial uses through careful
land use decisions.
Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate up to 4,500 more units compared to the HEU in the Specific Plan Area, which is in a TPA. Specifically, AC Transit bus routes 72, 72L, 72M, 72R, and 802 are located along San Pablo Avenue. San Pablo Avenue is located within 0.5 mile of the Ashby BART station at its southern end and within 0.5 mile of the North Berkeley BART station at its northern end. The project area also includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities to facilitate walking and biking. This would further reduce reliance on personal vehicles and
encourage usage of alternative modes of transport.
Policy LU-11 Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Friendly
Neighborhoods. Ensure that neighborhoods are
pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly with well-
maintained streets, street trees, sidewalks, and
pathways.
Consistent. Future development would be required to comply with residential bicycle parking standards pursuant to BMC Section 23.322.090. Future residents and workers would be able to utilize existing bicycle routes. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere or conflict with the City’s pedestrian or bicycle network.
Maintain and Enhance Berkeley’s Commercial Areas and the Downtown Policy LU-23 Transit-Oriented Development.
Encourage and maintain zoning that allows greater
commercial and residential density and reduced
residential parking requirements in areas with
above-average transit service such as Downtown
Berkeley.
Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate up to 4,500 more units compared to the HEU in the Specific Plan Area, which is in a TPA. Specifically, AC Transit bus routes 72, 72L, 72M, 72R, and 802 are located along San Pablo Avenue. San Pablo Avenue is located within 0.5 mile of the Ashby BART station at its southern end and within 0.5 mile of the North Berkeley BART station at its northern end. The project area also includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities to facilitate walking and biking. This would further reduce reliance on personal vehicles and
encourage usage of alternative modes of transport.
Policy LU-27 Avenue Commercial Areas. Maintain
and improve Avenue Commercial areas, such as
University, San Pablo, Telegraph, and South
Shattuck, as pedestrian-friendly, visually attractive
areas of pedestrian scale and ensure that Avenue
areas fully serve neighborhood needs as well as a
broader spectrum of needs.
Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate the
development of up to 4,500 more units in the San Pablo Avenue corridor compared to the HEU. The proposed project would streamline housing development by providing an objective set of development standards, such as building height and setbacks.
This would ensure that future development is compatible with the character and scale of Berkeley according to the City’s standards. The increase in residential density and mixed-use development within the Specific Plan Area would enhance the pedestrian environment by supporting a larger, more consistent customer base for local businesses. Added activity would create a more vibrant, walkable streetscape with improved visibility and overall street-level vitality.
Transportation Element
Automobile Use Reduction
Policy T-10 Trip Reduction. To reduce automobile
traffic and congestion and increase transit use and
Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate up to 4,500 more units compared to the HEU in the Specific Plan Area, which
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 60 Measure Proposed Project General Plan Consistency
alternative modes in Berkeley, support, and when
appropriate require, programs to encourage
Berkeley citizens and commuters to reduce
automobile trips, such as:
1. 1. Participation in a citywide Eco-Pass Program (also see Transportation Policy T-3).
2. 2. Participation in the Commuter Check Program.
3. 3. Carpooling and provision of carpool parking and
other necessary facilities.
4. 4. Telecommuting programs.
5. 5. “Free bicycle” programs and electric bicycle
programs.
6. 6. “Car-sharing” programs.
7. 7. Use of pedal-cab, bicycle delivery services, and
other delivery services.
8. 8. Programs to encourage neighborhood-level
initiatives to reduce traffic by encouraging residents
to combine trips, carpool, telecommute, reduce the
number of cars owned, shop locally, and use
alternative modes.
9. 9. Programs to reward Berkeley citizens and
neighborhoods that can document reduced car use.
10. 10. Limitations on the supply of long-term
commuter parking and elimination of subsidies for
commuter parking.
11. No-fare shopper shuttles connecting all shopping
districts throughout the city.
is in a TPA. Specifically, AC Transit bus routes 72, 72L, 72M, 72R, and 802 are located along San Pablo Avenue. San Pablo Avenue is located within 0.5 mile of the Ashby BART station at its southern end and within 0.5 mile of the North Berkeley BART station at its northern end. The project area also includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities to facilitate walking and biking. This would further reduce reliance on personal vehicles and
encourage usage of alternative modes of transport. In addition, future development would be required to comply with Chapter
23.334 of the BMC, which requires development and
implementation of a Transportation Demand Management
program.
Urban Design & Preservation
Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design. Promote
environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in
new buildings.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.5, Energy, and Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, future development projects would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen and the California Energy Code, which include requirements for environmentally sensitive and
sustainable design practices. In addition, all future residential customers would be placed in Ava’s Renewable 100 Plan which utilizes 100 percent renewable and carbon free energy.
Source: General Plan. City of Berkeley. 2021.
As a result, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies from the BMC, Plan Bay Area 2050 and the City’s General Plan as analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 61 3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to land use and planning, and no new mitigation measures are required.
4. Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to land use and planning, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to land use and planning than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
K. Noise
1. Impacts Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR
According to the Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management Element, noise-sensitive uses include but are not limited to residences, child-care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes.28 As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of the 2023 HEU EIR, the HEU could expose noise-sensitive receptors to combined noise levels from construction equipment of 84 dBA Leq at 50 feet without a pile driver, and 95 dBA Leq at 50 feet with a pile driver. Development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the City’s Standard COAs related to construction hours, construction noise reduction, construction noise management, and noise reduction plans.
Nonetheless, construction noise levels could still exceed the City’s standards for stationary equipment in both multi-family residential and commercial zones and could still exceed the City’s standards at multiple sites. Therefore, construction noise impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Operation of projects facilitated by the HEU would include mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, delivery and trash trucks, and other noise-generating activities. However, such activities would be similar to the existing noise environment, and development would be required to comply with Section 13.40.070 of the BMC, which states that stationary machines and other devices located on the exterior of structures which generate sounds perceptible outside the perimeters of the lot on which the machine or other device is located must be installed with such sound transmission control measures to
28 Berkeley, City of. 2001. General Plan. https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/adopted-plans/general-plan
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 62 adequately minimize or eliminate the transmission of the sound to a level not to exceed 60 dBA on weekdays and 50 dBA on weekends for single family residential beyond property perimeters; Section 23130 of the California Motor Vehicle Code which establishes maximum sound levels of 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet for trucks operating at speeds less than 35 miles per hour; Section 13.40.070 of the BMC which prohibits operating or permitting the operation of a mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool before 7:00 a.m. on a weekday (or before 9:00 a.m. on a weekend or holiday) or after 7:00 p.m. on a weekday (or after 8:00 p.m. on a weekend or holiday) such that the sound therefrom across a residential or commercial real property line violates BMC Section 13.40.050 or 13.40.060; and Section 19.29 of the BMC which includes the 2019 California Residential Code, as adopted in Title 24 Part 2.5 of the California Code of Regulations, which would reduce operational noise impacts to a less than significant level. As discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, daily VMT from the HEU would increase by approximately 6 percent over existing 2020 conditions by the year 2031. A 6 percent increase in traffic on a roadway would equate to an increase in noise of 0.2 dBA, which would not double the existing mobile noise source and would not increase noise levels by even the most conservative threshold of 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase. Off-site traffic noise impacts were therefore found to be less than significant.
The 2023 HEU EIR found that construction activities related to development facilitated by the HEU would not result in significant vibration impacts with adherence to the City’s Standard COA related to construction vibration. The 2023 HEU EIR also found that ground-borne vibration in the vicinity of development facilitated by the HEU would be primarily generated by vehicular travel on the local roadways. However, the HEU would not increase traffic trips such that it would be perceptible to nearby noise-sensitive receptors, and impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in 2023 HEU EIR Section 4.11, development facilitated by the HEU would not be exposed to intermittent noise levels from overhead flight patterns from airports in the city, because there are none located within Berkeley. In addition, residential development would be required to incorporate noise insulation features consistent with achieving State and local standards to reduce interior noise levels to below 45 dBA. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
Construction Noise
The proposed project would increase the potential number of units in Specific Plan Area by up to 4,500 units compared to the adopted HEU, and would allow increased building heights and density, which could require deeper foundations and/or increase the likelihood of sub-grade parking, and thereby result in additional demolition and construction activity that would generate
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 63 temporary increases in ambient noise levels. It is also possible that concurrent construction activity on nearby development sites could result in a higher combined temporary increase in ambient noise at sensitive receptors in the vicinity, and result in an adverse impact on nearby noise-sensitive receptors. As discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, construction noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment, the duration of use, the distance to receivers, and the potential for pile driving. Noise associated with construction of most development facilitated by the proposed project would be typical of residential construction in urban areas, but could exceed the eight-hour 80 dBA Leq daytime significance threshold at residences. Similar to the HEU, the proposed project could facilitate larger projects that may include relatively lengthy construction durations (i.e., longer than 18 months), two or more subterranean levels, use of multiple pieces of heavier equipment (i.e., cranes, excavators, dozers), simultaneous use of multiple pieces of equipment, and generally noisier activities, such as the potential for pile driving. This could potentially result in significant noise impacts, in particular to adjacent residential zones or other nearby noise-sensitive receivers, and would temporarily increase ambient noise levels above Federal Transit Administration (FTA) noise limits. Development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Standard COA related to construction hours, construction noise reduction programs, construction noise management, and noise reduction plans, which would reduce construction noise to the extent feasible.
Construction Hours (Residential Zoning Districts). Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and Noon on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.
Construction Hours (Non-Residential Zoning Districts). Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.
Construction Noise Reduction Program. The applicant shall develop a site specific noise reduction program prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to reduce construction noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible, subject to review and approval of the Zoning Officer.
The noise reduction program shall include the time limits for construction listed above, as measures needed to ensure that construction complies with BMC Section 13.40.070. The noise reduction program should include, but shall not be limited to, the following available controls to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical:
A. Construction equipment should be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 64 B. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
F. If impact pile driving is required, pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. Route construction related traffic along major roadways and away from sensitive receptors where feasible.
Construction Noise Management – Public Notice Required. At least two weeks prior to initiating any construction activities at the site, the applicant shall provide notice to businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site. This notice shall at a minimum provide the following: (1) project description, (2) description of construction activities, (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, (5) commitment to notify neighbors at least four days in advance of authorized extended work hours and the reason for extended hours, and (6) 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.
Noise Reduction Plan. Applicants are required to develop a site-specific noise reduction program prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to reduce construction noise impacts to the
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 65 maximum extent feasible. The noise reduction program would include several elements that would reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise, such as the following:
▪ Equipping all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers in good condition. ▪ Pre-drilling foundation pile holes to minimize the use of pile drivers. ▪ Installing solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to sensitive receptors. ▪ Erecting temporary noise control blanket barriers along building façades facing construction sites.
However, as discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, the Standard COAs would include the installation of temporary sound barriers where warranted, which are the most effective advanced measure to reduce noise from construction sites adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors, and no further measures are available to provide additional reductions in construction noise. Therefore, construction noise levels could still exceed the City’s standards for stationary equipment in both multi-family residential and commercial zones. Furthermore, construction noise levels could exceed the City’s standards at multiple sites where the proposed project would facilitate development in the Specific Plan Area. This impact would be significant and unavoidable, consistent with the 2023 HEU EIR findings.
Operational Noise
The additional 4,500 units facilitated under the proposed project would generate noise associated with the operation of residences. Typical noise sources associated with residential uses include stationary HVAC equipment, vehicle movement (e.g., delivery and trash hauling), outdoor activities, and traffic on area roadways. These impacts are discussed below.
HVAC Equipment
Because of the proposed increased density of development in the Specific Plan Area, this analysis includes the conservative assumption that new HVAC equipment could be installed as close as 20 feet from noise-sensitive receptors on adjacent properties. Typical residential HVAC units are anticipated to generate noise levels ranging from 50 to 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the source, if unshielded by equipment enclosures.29 Based on a standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from stationary noise sources, it is estimated that new HVAC equipment in the Specific Plan Area would generate noise levels reaching 68 dBA at 20 feet from the source. This estimate does not account for the shielding effect of equipment enclosures or
29 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2019. Noise and Vibration Impacts from Residences Proposed at 325 Yolanda Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA.
January 2019. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/251916-
2/attachment/m3VESve0Ky6z2njk58vk2yOfZP3inTgJtvC2_VPKqE0Ple__ZYeJyIgz1Vy_7PGcsn5TXsIqZP49OpMG0
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 66 rooftop parapets, which could block line of sight between the source and noise-sensitive receptors, reducing noise levels by at least 10 dBA. However, as discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, the design and placement of new HVAC equipment would be required to comply with Section
13.40.070 of the BMC, which states that stationary machines and other devices located on the exterior of structures which generate sounds perceptible outside the perimeters of the lot on which the machine or other device is located must be installed with such sound transmission control measures to adequately minimize or eliminate the transmission of the sound to a level not to exceed 60 dBA on weekdays and 50 dBA on weekends for single family residential beyond property perimeters. Stationary equipment shall not exceed 65 dBA on weekdays and 55 dBA on weekends for multi-family residential areas. Furthermore, a motor, machinery, pump, such as swimming pool equipment, etc., must be sufficiently enclosed or muffled and maintained so as not to create a Noise Disturbance in accordance with Section 13.40.050 or 13.40.060 of the BMC.
Therefore, impacts related to HVAC equipment would be less than significant, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings.
Vehicle Activity (Delivery and Trash Hauling)
Maximum noise levels generated by movement of medium duty delivery trucks generally range from 61 to 70 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet, depending on the speed at which the truck is driving.30 The average noise level for a single idling truck generally ranges from 72 to 77 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. It is assumed that delivery and trash hauling trucks serving additional development in the Specific Plan Area could stop as close as 25 feet to adjacent residences. An increase of up to 4,500 units in the Specific Plan Area could result in a slightly higher volume of truck trips for delivery and trash hauling. However, truck activity would not substantially exceed existing activity in the already urbanized Specific Plan Area. For example, trash and recycling trucks already visit most existing properties that could be redeveloped under the proposed project. Additionally, as discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, Section 23130 of the California Motor Vehicle Code establishes maximum sound levels of 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet for trucks operating at speeds less than 35 miles per hour, and solid waste pick-up operations are typically scheduled during daytime hours when people tend to be less sensitive to noise. Furthermore, these noise events from trucks are typically transient and intermittent, and do not occur for a sustained period of time. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, impacts related to delivery and trash hauling would be less than significant.
30 N. Olson; Survey of Motor Vehicle Noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1 November 1972; 52 (5A): 1291– 1306. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1913246
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 67 Outdoor Activity Areas
Addition of up to 4,500 units in the Specific Plan Area would increase the number of residents and thereby increase noise generated by conversations, music, television, or other outdoor sound- generating equipment (e.g., leaf blowers), particularly in the event future residents open their windows or such activities take place on balconies or in common outdoor amenity areas.
However, these noise-generating activities would be similar to those of the existing urban environment. Further, violations of the noise ordinance would be subject to BMC Chapter 13.40.
This chapter prohibits noise disturbances such as loud equipment, amplified sound not associated with a permitted event, or yelling and sets forth procedures if violations occur. Section 13.40.070 of the BMC prohibits operating or permitting the operation of a mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool before 7:00 a.m. on a weekday (or before 9:00 a.m. on a weekend or holiday) or after 7:00 p.m. on a weekday (or after 8:00 p.m. on a weekend or holiday) such that the sound therefrom across a residential or commercial real property line violates Section 13.40.050 or 13.40.060 of the BMC. Furthermore, Chapter 19.29 of the BMC includes the 2019 California Residential Code, as adopted in Title 24 Part 2.5 of the California Code of Regulations. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, impacts related to outdoor activities would be less than significant.
Roadway Vehicle Noise
The proposed project would allow for up to 4,500 more units in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was anticipated under the HEU. The proposed project could affect ambient traffic noise if the proposed project facilitated development in a way that would increase vehicle trips to and from the Specific Plan Area. As stated above in the “Impacts Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR,” a doubling of mobile noise sources would increase traffic noise levels by an estimated 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase. Due to the nature of the project which is located along a major transit corridor it is not anticipated that the project would double the existing mobile noise sources along any one roadway and therefore would not increase noise levels by the most conservative threshold of 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase.
The HEU’s projected buildout of 19,098 units results in a 5.5 percent increase in vehicle trips, which equates to an increase of 0.2 dBA – well below the 3dBA threshold. The maximum buildout of the proposed project is 4,500 additional units over the HEU’s projected buildout, an approximately 24 percent increase in units. This increase in units would not result in a large enough increase in vehicle trips to exceed the 3 dBA threshold. Even under a conservative, proportional assumption (i.e., trips – and thus noise – scale with units), a ≤25 percent increase over 0.2 dBA would be ≤0.25 dBA, which remains well below the 3 dBA threshold. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential maximum buildout would not change the level of significance compared to the 2023 HEU EIR.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 68 Therefore, overall, the project would not double the existing mobile noise source and would not increase noise levels by even the most conservative threshold of 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase. Similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, impacts related to off-site operational noise would be less than significant.
Operational Vibration
Similar to the HEU, it is not anticipated that operation of residential development would involve activities that would result in substantial vibration levels, such as use of heavy equipment or machinery. Based on the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment31 guidance document, rubber tires and suspension systems dampen vibration levels from vehicles on local roadways to a level that is rarely perceptible. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to operational vibration.
Construction Vibration
The proposed project would allow for additional development in the Specific Plan Area, the construction of which could intermittently generate strong vibration. As discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, general construction equipment such as a vibratory roller would generate vibration levels up to 0.21 in./sec. peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet, while more intensive equipment such as pile driving could generate a vibration level of approximately 0.64 in./sec. PPV at 25 feet.
According to Caltrans impact criteria, the damage threshold for historic sites (which are most sensitive to impacts from groundborne vibration) is 0.12 in./sec. PPV. Groundborne vibration from hoe rams, bulldozers, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammers would not exceed the 0.1 in./sec. PPV threshold for sensitive historic sites. While groundborne vibration from vibratory rollers would only exceed the threshold for building damage for historic sites at 25 feet from the source, vibration levels from pile driving would exceed one or more of building damage thresholds for historic sites, general old buildings, and older and newer residential structures.
Furthermore, vibration levels associated with pile driving would also exceed the threshold of 0.25 in./sec. PPV for human annoyance at various distances up to 75 feet. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Standard COA related to construction vibration, which would ensure groundborne vibration from vibratory rollers and vibration levels from pile driving would not occur in a manner that would damage buildings.
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
31 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment- manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 69 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.
Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Airport Noise
As discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, the closest airport to Berkeley is the Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport. According to the Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Berkeley is located outside of the airport’s noise contours and the airport influence area illustrated in Figure 3-1 of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.32 Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the plan area to excessive noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would increase the intensity/density of development along the San Pablo Avenue beyond what was evaluated in the 2023 HEU EIR and the level of impact may incrementally increase but not to the levels that will change the level of significance. The same regulations and Standard COAs would apply to development under the proposed project.
Impacts related to noise would be the same as for the program studied in the 2023 HEU EIR and would be significant and unavoidable.
32 Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2010. Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/OAK_ALUCP_122010_FULL.pdf
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 70 3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to noise and vibration, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COAs related to construction hours, construction noise reduction, construction noise management, noise reduction plans, and construction vibration, as referenced in the 2023 HEU EIR, would remain applicable.
4. Conclusion
The City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for construction noise reduction and management and BMC requirements would still be applicable to development under the proposed project.
However, even with implementation of these conditions, impacts related to construction noise would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings. Nonetheless, no substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. The proposed project may incrementally increase impacts with respect to noise, but would have no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to noise than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
L. Population and Housing
1. Impact Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR
As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of the 2023 HEU EIR, the HEU would add housing sites with a potential for up to 19,098 additional residential units and 47,443 additional residents by the year 2031. The 2023 HEU EIR found that the HEU would be consistent with State requirements for the RHNA and would be within the growth forecasts for Northwest Alameda County in Plan Bay Area 2050, which projected a 57 percent increase in population for Northwest Alameda County. The 2023 HEU EIR found that the HEU would not directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth and would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing. Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
The HEU buildout estimates a population increase of 47,443 (or a 38 percent increase over the 2020 population of 124,563). Utilizing the same persons per unit assumption from the HEU of 2.5 for multi-family, the proposed project’s maximum buildout of 4,500 additional units over the HEU’s projected buildout would result in a population increase of 11,250. The HEU and the proposed project would result in a population increase of 58,693 or a 47 percent increase over the
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 71 2020 population by 2031 (buildout year of 2023 HEU). The Specific Plan and HEU population increase is consistent with State requirements for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and would be within the growth forecasts for Northwest Alameda County in Plan Bay Area 2050, which projects a 57 percent increase in population. Given that the State is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply, the additional units under the proposed project would also assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting Berkeley’s housing needs.
Similar to what was analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR, this analysis is conservative because it assumes a maximum buildout scenario. The proposed project’s actual contribution to population growth may be less than estimated. In addition, the proposed project would not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure that could indirectly lead to population growth. As discussed in Sections 5.13, Public Services and Recreation, and Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the 2023 HEU EIR, the city is mostly developed and is supported by existing public services and infrastructure which are sufficient to serve the additional housing units. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant, same as the impact analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR.
While the proposed project would have no direct physical effects, subsequent development allowed by the proposed project could involve the demolition of existing housing units in the Specific Plan Area. Because the addition of up to 4,500 more housing units than analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR would more than offset the potential loss of housing units, the proposed project would not require the construction of additional housing elsewhere. Future applicants would be required to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which would require developers of market-rate ownership housing to include affordable ownership units or pay a fee, as well as the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance, which would require developers of market-rate rental housing to pay a fee to the Housing Trust Fund (which is used as funding for affordable housing production) or include affordable units in developments. In addition, SB 330 would require that replacement housing be either rent-controlled or below market rate.
Moreover, deed restrictions may run with individual properties to maintain long-term affordability. The BMC also places conditions on the loss of housing units and includes tenant protections for displaced residents. Projects that involve demolition or elimination of dwelling units would be subject to BMC Chapter 13.79.060, which includes tenant protections for displaced residences. When demolition of an occupied unit is approved, the project applicant is required to provide assistance with moving expenses and subsidize the rent differential for a comparable replacement unit. If a tenant is displaced due to the owner withdrawing the building from rent or lease or for repairs to bring the unit into compliance, BMC Section 13.77.055 and Chapter 13.84 entitle the tenant to relocation compensation and certain protections. In addition, BMC Section
13.76.130 requires landlords to have good cause for evictions and provide relocation assistance to households as specified in Section 13.76.130A(8). Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings,
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 72 the proposed project would not result in the net loss or displacement of housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and impacts would be less than significant.
3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to population and housing, and no new mitigation measures are required.
4. Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to population and housing, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to population and housing than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
M. Public Service and Recreation
1. Impact Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR
As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of the 2023 HEU EIR, the HEU would increase demand for fire and police protection services, school facilities, and parks and recreational facilities. However, compliance with Government Code 65995 (b) as well as policies in the City’s General Plan and BMC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
Fire Protection
Fire protection in the city is provided by the Berkeley Fire Department (BFD). The proposed project would facilitate development that would increase population in Specific Plan Area and in Berkeley by adding the potential for up to 4,500 new units. Using the 2023 HEU EIR estimate of
2.5 persons per household, the proposed project’s changes to the HEU would result in 11,250 new residents in addition to the 47,443 new residents estimated to be added in the HEU as analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR. The additional increase in residents associated with the proposed project could increase demand for fire protection and emergency medical services such that additional staff, equipment or facilities would be needed to meet response time goals. However, future development would be facilitated on underutilized sites in urbanized areas in the Specific Plan Area which are already served by existing fire stations. The Specific Plan Area is served by two fire districts and their associated BFD Fire Stations. The Specific Plan Area north of University Avenue
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 73 is served by the BFD Fire Station 6 and south of University Avenue is served by the BFD Fire Station 1. The continued implementation of policies and actions in the Berkeley General Plan would improve the ability of fire protection facilities to serve this additional future development and allow fire protection services to maintain response time goals. As discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, the BFD has an average response time of five minutes and fifteen seconds (5:15) from when the station receives the call to the first unit arriving on the scene. The median response time is 4:46. Policy S-22 in the City’s Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan calls for the City to provide adequately staffed and equipped Fire Stations and to pursue a response time goal of four minutes from the nearest station to all parts of Berkeley. Although the City’s response time goal of four minutes has not been met, new residential projects would be reviewed for compliance with these requirements and compliance with other building and safety regulations several times during different phases of project development, such as the entitlement and pre-application phase, during the building permit process, and during the construction process.
Future development would be required to comply with basic building designs and standards for residential buildings as mandated by the Berkeley Fire Code under BMC Chapter 19.48. In some cases, older buildings not constructed to today’s more stringent levels of fire-safety regulation would be replaced by new buildings compliant with existing regulations, improving fire safety on those sites. Compliance with designs and standards and other fire safety requirements would reduce the demand for fire protection services and thereby reduce the need for new fire stations.
Future development would also be required to comply with abatement of fire-related hazards and pre-fire management prescriptions as contained in the California Health and Safety Code and the California Fire Plan. The City’s Measure FF, passed in November 2020, is estimated to generate $8.5 million annually, and would be used to implement a state-of-the-art 911 dispatch system to ensure rapid assistance to emergency medical calls, increase ambulance and paramedic capacity, to better meet the needs of all residents, and strengthen wildfire, earthquake and other disaster prevention and preparedness with new, expanded emergency warning systems, fire fuel reduction and evacuation planning. These funds will allow the Fire Department to address increased call volumes and emergency medical service needs that result from city-wide increases in residential density, including the anticipated increase allowed under the proposed project. Future remodeling or expansion of BFD facilities to accommodate new equipment would not be needed to specifically to serve the additional residential units, which would be added incrementally in various locations in the city and served by more than one fire station. Should a new fire station be required, the environmental impacts of constructing a fire station would be consistent with the construction-related impacts discussed in other sections of this Addendum and the 2023 HEU EIR. Should the Fire Department and the City determine that additional facilities are needed to provide fire protection services to the Specific Plan Area, it is not known whether such facilities would be located within the Specific Plan Area or elsewhere in
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 74 the city. If and when the BFD proposes a new station and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City will conduct a complete a site-specific evaluation of the station’s environmental impacts under CEQA. Therefore, impacts to fire services would be less than significant, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings.
Police Protection
Police protection in the city is provided by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD). Although the proposed project would increase potential buildout in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR by up to 4,500 units, future development would be facilitated on underutilized sites in urbanized areas which are already served by the BPD. Nonetheless, the additional population growth facilitated by the proposed project could result in an increase in reported incidents, leading to longer response times unless the BPD increases staffing. The Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element, the Transportation Element and the Economic Development & Employment Element of the City’s General Plan include policies that would ensure police services are adequate to accommodate an increase in population. Specifically, Policy S-1 and Action G would ensure that the City’s emergency response plans are current and incorporate the latest information on hazards, vulnerability and resources; Policy T-28 and Action A would ensure emergency access be provided to all parts of the city which would not significantly increase emergency response times or hinder effective evacuation; and Policy ED-4 and Action A would ensure there are adequate levels of police presence in neighborhood and avenue commercial zones. Should the BPD and the City determine that additional facilities are needed to provide police protection services to the Specific Plan Area, it is not known whether such facilities would be located within the Specific Plan Area or elsewhere in the city. If and when the BPD proposes a new station and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City will conduct a complete a site-specific evaluation of the station’s environmental impacts under CEQA. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, impacts to police services would be less than significant.
Schools
As discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, in a study prepared for Berkeley Unified School District’s (BUSD) adopted School Facilities Fee on new residential and commercial/industrial development, the District used a blended student generation rate of 0.191 for all housing types.33 Based on this generation rate, development under the proposed project would add an estimated total of 860 new students over time. This number is highly conservative, however, the proposed project could
33 Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD). 2016. School Facility Fee Justification Report for Residential, Commercial & Industrial Development Projects for the Berkeley Unified School District. Berkeley, CA. September 2016. https://www.berkeleyschools.net/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/Berkeley-USD-Level-I-2016-FINAL-10-10-2016.pdf
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 75 encourage housing that would add more school-aged children to BUSD schools. These students would be distributed throughout the schools that serve Berkeley depending on their grade level, their location, and their school preferences. The addition of 860 students under the proposed project would result in an increase of 9 percent compared to the BUSD enrollment of 9,342 students in the 2023-24 school year.34 However, as discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, future development facilitated by proposed project would be required to pay school impact fees pursuant to Section 65995(3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), which BUSD would use to maintain the desired school capacity and the maintenance and/or development of new school facilities. Furthermore, if and when the City proposes new facilities and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City will conduct an evaluation of the site-specific environmental impacts of the new school facility under CEQA.
Therefore, impacts related to school capacity would be less than significant, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings.
Parks and Recreation
Similar to the HEU, the proposed project would not include the provision of new parks or the physical alteration of existing parks or recreation centers. Full buildout of the proposed project would further increase the number of residents in the Specific Plan Area compared to the HEU by 11,250 people, which would increase the use of parks and recreational facilities. As discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, the ratio of parkland per resident is approximately 25.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Although the proposed project would decrease the ratio of parkland per resident from
25.5 acres per 1,000 residents to 23.9 acres per 1,000 residents, in accordance with General Plan policies, the City continually evaluates and plans for expansion or renovations of parks and recreation facilities as need to accommodate demand. Compliance with General Plan policies, particularly Policies OS-1, OS-2, OS-6, would ensure park facilities are kept up to date and park acreage to population ratio is maintained within Berkeley. Compliance with General Plan policies and actions would potentially result in development of new recreational opportunities including parks. Should future park or recreational facilities be identified for construction, it is not known where such facilities would be located. If and when the Parks Department proposes new facilities and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City will conduct an evaluation of the site- specific environmental impacts of the new park or recreation facility under CEQA. Future residents in the Specific Plan Area would also be able to access existing City parks and regional recreational facilities; including the Bay Trail and Eastshore State Park and Tilden Regional Park and Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial overuse of existing City parks which may cause physical deterioration of these facilities or require the construction or expansion of facilities which may have an adverse physical
34 Ed-data.org. 2022. “District Summary, Berkeley Unified.” https://www.ed-data.org/district/Alameda/Berkeley-Unified
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 76 effect on the environment. Therefore, impacts related to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings.
3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to public services and recreation, and no new mitigation measures are required.
4. Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to public services and recreation, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to public services and recreation than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
N. Transportation
1. Impact Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR
As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, of the 2023 HEU EIR, the HEU would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Although the HEU would increase ridership for AC Transit and BART, AC Transit and BART monitor and plan for anticipated changes in local and regional ridership levels and increased demand through their ongoing evaluation of routes, schedules, ridership, and capacity availability. The HEU would also be consistent with the City’s 2026 Bicycle Plan and development would be required to provide long-term and short-term bicycle parking in accordance with BMC Section 23.322.090 as well as meet applicable requirements for pedestrian access under BMC Section 23.304.100.
The 2023 HEU EIR found that the HEU would decrease VMT per capita by 3 percent, from 11.22 to
10.86, which would be below the City of Berkeley VMT threshold of 19.38 (15 percent below regional average household VMT per capita of 22.80). Therefore, VMT impacts were found to be less than significant.
As found in the 2023 HEU EIR, the HEU would not include hazardous geometric design features or incompatible uses, and circulation components and geometric design features for individual projects would be reviewed by the City Engineering division and would be in accordance with all
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 77 applicable City standards and the building plan check process to minimize design hazards.
Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant.
The HEU also would not result in inadequate emergency access. The 2023 HEU EIR determined that development under the HEU would be required to comply with basic building designs and standards for residential buildings as mandated by the Berkeley Fire Code, under BMC Chapter
19.48. As a part of development review, representatives from several City departments and representatives, including the Building and Safety Division, the Transportation Division, and the Fire Department, would review the entitlement plan set to ensure compliance with egress requirements and other fire safety features. Individual projects would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth in the most current adopted building codes and fire and life safety standards. Compliance with these standards is ensured through the City review and building plan check process. Based on the preceding, impacts related to emergency access were found to be less than significant.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed project would allow for up to 4,500 more units in the Specific Plan Area, which are areas served by BART and AC Transit, and therefore would increase the transit ridership for AC Transit and BART. However, AC Transit and BART monitor and plan for anticipated changes in local and regional ridership levels and increased demand through their ongoing evaluation of routes, schedules, ridership, and capacity availability. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, the proposed project would not conflict with AC Transit’s or BART’s ongoing efforts for facility improvement or capital improvement project planning.
The proposed project would concentrate development in Specific Plan Area with is entirely in a TPA, and would place residents in proximity to jobs, services, and transit, which would encourage walking, bicycling, and the use of alternative modes of transportation. Future development would be reviewed in accordance with the City’s Public Works Department Transportation Program standards, which would provide oversight engineering review to ensure that the project is constructed according to City standards. Thus, the proposed project would also be consistent with the City’s 2026 Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update. The proposed project does not include modifications to the public right-of-way and, therefore, would not preclude the installation of the planned or proposed bicycle facilities on the streets in the city. Development facilitated by the proposed project would provide long-term and short-term bicycle parking in accordance with BMC Section 23.322.090 requirements to accommodate the bicycle parking demand generated by the project residents and would also be required to meet applicable requirements for pedestrian access under BMC Section 23.304.100 or other requirements as applicable. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Bicycle Plan Update or the City’s Pedestrian Plan, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the adopted HEU.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 78 As discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, the City of Berkeley has adopted thresholds to evaluate significant impacts for VMT. For residential uses, the City of Berkeley adopted a threshold of significance for VMT analysis based on the guidance from the California’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) that a residential project’s VMT impact is considered less than significant if its household VMT per capita is at least 15 percent below the regional average household VMT per capita. Therefore, an increase in VMT per capita above 16.71 VMT (15 percent below the regional average of 19.67) would be considered a significant impact. However, the Specific Plan Area would satisfy the City’s VMT screening criteria since the entire Specific Plan Area is located within a TPA and is proximate to high-quality transit Moreover, the HEU VMT per capita of 10.86 assumes the addition of 19,098 housing units and 47,500 residents and remains well below the significance threshold of 19.38. The proposed project would add approximately 4,500 additional units and 11,250 additional residents—an increase of less than 25 percent relative to the HEU assumptions. Given that the HEU VMT per capita is substantially below the threshold, this proportional increase would not be expected to raise VMT per capita above the 19.38 threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would result in VMT per capita below applicable thresholds and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings.
Similar to the HEU, the proposed project’s changes would not include hazardous geometric design features or incompatible uses. Each housing application would be evaluated at the project-specific level. Circulation components and geometric design features would be reviewed by the City Engineering division and would be in accordance with all applicable City standards and the building plan check process to minimize design hazards. Design review standards include standards for project access points, location, design, sight lines, roadway modifications, provisions for bicycle and pedestrian transportation connections, and emergency access. The proposed project includes policies to incentivize developers to create pedestrian plazas by partially or fully closing minor side streets that intersect with San Pablo Avenue to vehicular traffic, while maintaining emergency access. However, prior to any streets being closed, the selected streets would be reviewed by the Fire and Public Works Departments to ensure that there are no significant emergency access or safety impacts. Additionally, future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with basic building designs and standards for residential buildings as mandated by the Berkeley Fire Code, pursuant to BMC Chapter 19.48. As part of the development review process, representatives from several City departments and representatives, including the Building and Safety Division, the Transportation Division, and the Fire Department, would review the proposed development plan set to ensure compliance with emergency access requirements and other fire safety features. Future projects would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth in the most current building codes and fire and life safety standards, which would reduce impacts related to emergency access. Therefore, as was found in the 2023 HEU EIR, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to safety hazards and emergency access.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 79 3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to transportation and circulation, and no new or revised mitigation measures are required.
4. Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to transportation, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to transportation than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
O. Tribal Cultural Resources
1. Impact Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR
As discussed in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the 2023 HEU EIR, ground-disturbing activities associated with the HEU could expose and adversely affect previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as tribal cultural resources. However, impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s Standard COAs related to archaeological resources and human remains set forth above under Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, as well as Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU and would require tribal cultural monitoring.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
Based on the results of AB 52 and SB 18 consultation conducted as part of preparation of the 2023 HEU EIR, tribal cultural resources were found to be potentially present in areas near the waterfront and near Indian Rock. Although the proposed project would increase potential buildout in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR by up to 4,500 units, development facilitated by the proposed project would be concentrated on developed sites and would not be within the areas determined by consulting tribes to be sensitive for tribal cultural resources. The project includes amendments to the General Plan, and therefore required Tribal Consultation, pursuant to AB 52. The California Native American Heritage Commission provided contact information for tribes potentially affected by the project, and the City sent letters to these tribes. No tribes requested consultation within the deadline. Similar to what was concluded in the 2023 HEU EIR, it can be assumed that no tribal cultural resources have been identified. Nonetheless, similar to the HEU, ground-disturbing activities associated with
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 80 individual development projects under the proposed project could expose previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as tribal cultural resources and could be adversely affected by construction. Additionally, the proposed project would allow increased building heights, which could require deeper foundations and thereby increase the likelihood of encountering tribal cultural resources. Future projects subject to CEQA and SB 35 would require project-specific tribal cultural resource identification and consultation and incorporation of the appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation identified through the consultation process.
In addition, the City’s Standard COA related to the protection of archaeological resources and human remains (including remains that are determined to be of Native American origin) would apply to future development. In addition to the City’s Standard COAs related to the protection of archaeological resources and human remains set forth in full in Addendum Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, previously adopted Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would be required to be implemented and would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources a less than significant level.
3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to Tribal Cultural Resources, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COAs related to archaeological resources and human remains, set forth above in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, which apply to the HEU as a whole, would remain applicable. Previously adopted 2023 HEU EIR Mitigation Measure TCR-1, incorporated in the City’s Standard COAs, also would remain applicable and would continue to be implemented and monitored.
TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Monitoring. For future projects that are determined through tribal consultation to potentially affect tribal cultural resources, in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts to Native American cultural objects and human remains discovered during construction, tribal cultural monitors will be retained to monitor work done in areas of Tribal concern, as determined through tribal consultation. If Native American cultural objects and/or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until the objects have been inspected and evaluated by tribal cultural monitors and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards of the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR Part 61). The archaeologist shall, in accordance with the appropriate Guidelines, identify and evaluate the significance of the discovery and develop recommendations for treatment in consultation with the affected Tribe to ensure any impacts to the cultural resource are less than significant. The preferred mitigation is avoidance. If avoidance is not feasible, project impacts shall be mitigated in consultation with the affected Tribe consistent with the CEQA Guidelines for Determining the Significance of and Impacts to Cultural Resource, Archaeological Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources. Such mitigation may include, but is not limited to, additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring and/or an archaeological data recovery program. A Native American monitor shall
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 81 be retained to monitor the ground disturbance when it is suspected that a TCR might be encountered.
4. Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with mitigation with respect to tribal cultural resources, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
P. Utilities and Service Systems
1. Impact Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR
As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the 2023 HEU EIR, HEU would increase water demand in the City by an estimated 0.96 mgd, or approximately 0.5 percent, above the 2030 EBMUD water service area demand estimate of 190 mgd. The increase of 0.5 percent from the projected 2030 water demand in EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) would also increase the gallons per capita per day (gpcd) from 121 gpcd to 127 gpcd.
However, this would still be well below the EBMUD service area water reduction goal of 153 gpcd by 2020. Therefore, EBMUD infrastructure and facilities would have adequate capacity to service the HEU, and construction and operation of development facilitated by the HEU would not require new or expanded water supply facilities. With demand management during multi-year droughts, as required by EBMUD, impacts of HEU related to water supply would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the 2023 HEU EIR, development facilitated by the HEU would generate approximately 765,688 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. EBMUD projects that 61 mgd of wastewater will be collected and treated in the EBMUD Special District No.1 by 2040. Therefore, the HEU would generate approximately
1.3 percent of the wastewater collected and treated in in the district by 2040. The increased wastewater generation would be within the remaining capacity of EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP), and the plant’s existing wastewater treatment capacity would be sufficient to accommodate the increase in population facilitated by the HEU. Additionally, as discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, although the construction of new or expanded sewer mains may be necessary to accommodate additional wastewater flow, development would be required to
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 82 comply with the City’s Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance35 (BMC Section 17.24.130) and impacts related to individual new sewer main construction projects would be less than significant due to their temporary nature, adherence to existing requirements, and the already developed nature of wastewater conveyance corridors. Development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with BMC Title 17 which establishes City standards related to wastewater discharge, peak flow, and sewer capacity. Every person, firm, corporation or entity desiring to construct a new connection to sewer services to the City’s sanitary sewer system would be required to pay a connection fee in the amount as established by City Council resolution. With adherence to City regulations and General Plan policies, impacts related to wastewater conveyance and the construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities were found to be less than significant.
As discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, existing stormwater infrastructure, electricity and natural gas facilities, and telecommunications infrastructure would be able to accommodate the increased demand under the HEU, and the construction or relation of facilities would be required.
Lastly, the 2023 HEU EIR found that the HEU would generate 23.7 cubic yards of solid waste per day or 8,651 cubic yards of solid waste per year, which would be 0.013 percent of the total remaining capacity of 65.4 million cubic yards of the Altamont Landfill. Therefore, impacts to solid waste were found to be less than significant.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
The City’s wastewater treatment capacity is 320 million gallons per day (mgd). The existing average daily flow is 63 mgd and the HEU buildout would add an additional 0.77 mgd. Based on the HEU wastewater generation assumption of 40 gallons per day (gpd) for a multi-family unit, the proposed project buildout of 4,500 units above the Housing Element maximum buildout would add 180,000 gpd, which is 0.18 mgd and well within the City’s treatment capacity of 320 mgd. New development would be required to comply with the City’s Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance, by eliminating wet-weather infiltration and inflow to private sewer laterals, which would regulate wet-weather contribution from the proposed project. Although construction of new or expanded sewer mains may be necessary to accommodate additional wastewater flow, the precise sizing of new wastewater conveyance pipes would be determined at the time of installation and would be subject to the approval of the City to ensure that the system would be adequate. The impacts of sewer main construction projects would be less than significant due to their temporary nature, adherence to existing requirements, and the already developed nature of wastewater conveyance corridors. Impacts of construction of projects facilitated by the proposed project are analyzed comprehensively throughout this Addendum and the 2023 HEU. Future
35 City of Berkeley.2023. Private Sewer Lateral website. https://berkeleyca.gov/city-services/streets-sidewalks-sewers-and- utilities/private-sewer-lateral
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 83 development facilitated by the proposed project would also be required to comply with BMC Title 17 which establishes City standards related to wastewater discharge, peak flow, and sewer capacity, and future applicants desiring to construct a new connection the City’s sanitary sewer system would be required to pay a connection fee in the amount as established by City Council resolution. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, impacts related to wastewater would be less than significant.
The HEU projected increase in water demand is 0.96 mgd, which is a 0.5 percent increase over the 2030 EBMUD service area demand of 190 mgd. Based on the HEU water use assumption of 50 gpd per multi-family unit, the proposed project buildout would add 225,000 gpd, which is
0.25 mgd. The HEU and proposed project buildout would increase demand in the City by an estimated 1.21 mgd or 0.64 percent increase to the 2030 EBMUD service area demand.
Similar to the HEU, the EBMUD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is used to project water demand with the proposed project. The EBMUD service area reduction goal is 153 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2020. As discussed in the 2023 HEU EIR, the EBMUD service area has a water reduction goal of 153 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2020, and in 2020 the Mid- Peninsula Water District (MPWD) reported its gpcd was 121 gpcd which met the target. Based on the increase of approximately 0.64 percent from the projected 2030 water demand in EMBUD’s UWMP, estimated gpcd with implementation of the proposed project would be 129 gpcd, which would still be well below the targeted 153 gpcd. Future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with water conservation regulations and policies which would help maintain sufficient supplies, such as California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen), the State’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO) and EBMUD’s Section 31. Therefore, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve development facilitated by the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the HEU solid waste generation rate of 4/lbs/unit/day, and conversion factor of 1,000 pounds per cubic yard, the proposed project buildout would generate 18 cubic yards of solid waste per day. With Berkeley’s 69 percent diversion rate, the proposed project buildout would generate an additional 5.58 cubic yards of solid waste per day, which equates to 2,037 cubic yards per year. The landfill has a remaining capacity of 52.3 million cubic yards (as of October, 2025), meaning the proposed project’s potential maximum buildout would generate 0.0039 percent of the current total remaining landfill capacity per year which is an insignificant increase compared to the 0.013 percent as analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR findings.
As discussed above, impacts related to utilities and service systems, including water demand, wastewater and stormwater generation, solid waste generation, and electricity, natural gas and
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 84 telecommunications service, may incrementally increase, but would be within those disclosed in the 2023 HEU EIR.
3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to utilities and service systems, and no new mitigation measures are required.
4. Conclusion
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to utilities and service systems, similar to the 2023 HEU EIR. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to utilities and service systems than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
Q. Wildfire
1. Impact Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR
As discussed in Section 4.17, Wildfire, of the 2023 HEU EIR, 82 units of the HEU would be located in Fire Zones 2 and 3, which are considered Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). The HEU would also facilitate increased residential development in the R-1, R-2, and R-2A districts, which include portions within the VHFHSZ. Development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s Standard COA to prepare a Transportation Construction Plan, which would limit the extent to which development would impair or physically interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation procedures. Development also would be required to comply with existing City regulations and prepare a Fire Protection Plan for housing projects in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, which would reduce the potential to exacerbate wildfire risk during construction and after projects are constructed. This would also reduce the severity of potential impacts related to exposure to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the likelihood of wildfire ignition. Furthermore, the BMC requires site-specific geotechnical investigations which would reduce potential impacts related to landslides, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes following a potential wildfire for individual future development projects. Nonetheless, for some development projects, impacts may result from the potential for unusual site-specific or road conditions, project characteristics, and the general ongoing fire risk in the Berkeley Hills; therefore, impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 85 The 2023 HEU EIR found that new development could require the installation and maintenance of new or improved roads, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities, the construction and operation of which could introduce potential sources of wildfire ignition, such as the sparking of an overhead power line or construction equipment or the operation of resident vehicles.
Although Mitigation Measure W-1, which was adopted and incorporated into the HEU and would reduce potential risks by requiring power lines to be placed underground in areas subject to wildfire risk, it may not be feasible to impose the requirement on all projects. Potentially unusual site-specific conditions or aspects of a specific infrastructure project, including power line installation, may result in wildfire impacts from the installation or maintenance of infrastructure required by buildout of the HEU. Therefore, this impact was also found to be significant and unavoidable.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed project would increase the intensity/density of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was evaluated in the 2023 HEU EIR, however no portion of the Specific Plan Area is within the VHFHSZ. The impacts from the potential allowed land uses, potential increase in residential density, and total number of potential new units that would be facilitated by the proposed project would no greater than those studied in the 2023 HEU EIR. The same regulations and standard conditions of approval would apply. Impacts related to wildfire would be similar compared to those disclosed in the 2023 HEU EIR but would remain significant and unavoidable as part of overall Housing Element implementation.
3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to wildfire, and no new mitigation measures are required. Berkeley’s Standard COA requiring preparation of a Transportation Construction Plan, as referenced in the 2023 HEU EIR and shown below, would remain applicable.
4. Conclusion
Similar to the HEU, wildfire impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Nonetheless, no substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to wildfire than were identified in the 2023 HEU EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would indicate that the project is not consistent with the HEU and its impacts as studied in the 2023 HEU EIR have been met.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 86 R. Cumulative Impacts
In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, CEQA requires consideration of potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are substantial or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the combined changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts. For example, noise impacts of two nearby projects may be less than significant when analyzed separately, but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. The cumulative impact analysis provides a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a summary of projections contained in an adopted planning document such as a general plan.
1. Cumulative Significant Impacts Identified in the 2023 HEU EIR The cumulative setting for the analysis in the 2023 HEU EIR is explained in Section 3, Environmental Setting, of the 2023 HEU EIR. As stated in that section, some analyses including air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and population and housing rely on larger geographic areas, such as the Bay Area region. For issues that may have regional cumulative effects, the cumulative impact analysis in the 2023 HEU EIR was based on Plan Bay Area 2040, the Bay Area’s most recent Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Based on the forecasts in Plan Bay Area 2040, in 2040 Berkeley is estimated to have a population of 140,900, 55,400 housing units, and 121,700 jobs. Development under the HEU in conjunction with development forecasted in Plan Bay Area 2040 is accounted for in the cumulative impacts analysis.
For analyses that may have more localized or neighborhood implications (biological resources, cultural resources, noise, public services, utilities, wildfire), the 2023 HEU EIR’s cumulative impact analysis includes development proposed under UC Berkeley’s LRDP and Housing Projects #1 and #2 as described in the University’s Draft EIR dated March 8, 2021.36 The 2021 LRDP planning assumption for the campus population is 48,200 students and 19,000 faculty and staff in the 2036-37 academic year compared to 39,300 students and 15,400 faculty and staff in the 2018-19 academic year. The LRDP also assumes 9,325,88 square feet of development on non-campus
36 University of California, Berkeley. 2021. UC Berkeley 2021 Long Range Development Plan and Housing Projects #1 and #2 Draft Environmental Impact Report. https://berkeley.app.box.com/s/rbb4buhz5b3w7yz8gk7ot2n759fpqbrs
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 87 University properties throughout Berkeley (including Housing Projects #1 and #2) compared to 4,640,769 square feet of development in 2018-2019.
Cumulative impacts associated with the HEU in combination with cumulative development were analyzed in Sections 4.1 through 4.17 of the 2023 HEU EIR. The 2023 HEU EIR found that cumulative development pursuant to the HEU and the LRDP would have the potential to impact historical resources. Historic-period resources could be vulnerable to development activities that could result in damage to or demolition of cultural resources. The HEU would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources. Implementation of previously-adopted Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, which were adopted and incorporated into the HEU, would reduce or avoid some but not all potential impacts to historical resources in Berkeley.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to historical resources would be significant, and the HEU’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable.
According to the Berkeley General Plan Environmental Management Element, noise-sensitive uses include but are not limited to residences, child-care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes (City of Berkeley 2001). The 2023 HEU EIR found that construction of future development projects in Berkeley would produce temporary noise impacts that would be localized to a project site and could affect noise-sensitive receptors within the immediate vicinity. Therefore, only sensitive receptors located in proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected by each activity. However, construction activities associated with individual housing development projects accommodated under the HEU may overlap for some time with construction activities for other development projects. Based on the locations of the potential housing sites included in the HEU and shown in Figure 2-4 of Section 2, Project Description, of the 2023 HEU EIR this could substantially increase noise levels at specific neighboring noise-sensitive receivers since many sites are located in proximity to each other. Therefore, concurrent construction of development projects facilitated by the HEU could result in cumulatively considerable impacts.
The 2023 HEU EIR also found that in and near Berkeley, the VHFHSZs are located largely along the WUI borders within the hilly northwestern areas. Within the geographic scope for this cumulative analysis wildfire-related impacts could be significant if development is in or near Berkeley’s VHFHSZ. The University’s proposed LRDP update would involve improvements and development in Campus Park, the Hill Campus West, the Hill Campus East, the Clark Kerr Campus, and the City Environs Properties, areas of which fall within the VHFHSZ. Development within this area could exacerbate wildfire risks. Like development under the HEU, new development under the LRDP would be subject to statewide standards for fire safety in the California Fire Code. Nonetheless, because the proposed HEU could exacerbate wildfire risk in a VHFHSZ and development under the proposed LRDP update could also exacerbate such risks, a cumulative impact would occur and the HEU’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 88 For all other impact areas, the 2023 HEU EIR found that the HEU would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed project would have no new or substantially more severe significant effects than those analyzed and disclosed in the 2023 HEU EIR. The 2023 HEU EIR found significant and unavoidable impacts related to cultural resources, noise and wildfire. Like the HEU, the proposed project would result in impacts related to historical resources and construction noise. Unlike the HEU, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to wildfire.
For impacts related to cultural resources, implementation of previously adopted Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and W-1, as well as the City's standard conditions of approval related to historical resources, would reduce impacts. Although impacts to historical resources would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the conclusions of the adopted HEU EIR, the Specific Plan Area contains only approximately 1.7 percent of the City's identified historic resources. While individual resources within the Specific Plan Area may vary in sensitivity, the area's limited share of the City's total historic resources supports the conclusion that the project's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would not be substantially greater than that evaluated in the 2023 HEU EIR. The proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts related to historical resources than those identified in the 2023 HEU EIR.
For impacts related to noise, the City’s standard conditions of approval for construction noise reduction and management, as well as applicable provisions of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), would continue to apply to development under the proposed project. These measures would reduce construction-related noise impacts; however, even with their implementation, impacts related to construction noise would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the conclusions of the HEU EIR. While the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in construction activity and associated noise due to the addition of approximately 4,500 housing units, these impacts are within the range of construction noise impacts previously analyzed in the 2023 HEU EIR and do not represent new or substantially more severe impacts beyond those disclosed in that analysis.
For impacts related to wildfire, unlike the HEU, no portion of the Specific Plan Area is within the VHFHSZ and therefore the proposed project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts related to wildfire.
Similar to the HEU, the proposed project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts related to all other impact areas with adherence to State and local regulations as well as the City’s
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HEU 89 Standard COAs. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact.
3. Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to cumulative impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.
S. Conclusion
This CEQA Review Document demonstrates that the proposed project and the potential impacts associated with the proposed project are consistent with potential impacts characterized in and mitigation measures developed for the 2023 HEU EIR. Substantive revisions to the 2023 HEU EIR are not necessary because no new significant impacts or impacts of substantially greater severity than previously described would occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the following determinations are applicable:
▪ No further evaluation of environmental impacts is required for the proposed project ▪ No Subsequent EIR or negative declaration is necessary per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 ▪ An Addendum to the Housing Element EIR is the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), this CEQA Review Document will be included in the public record and will be considered as part of the deliberations on the proposed project.
Documents related to this Addendum will be available at the City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department.
APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND
SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-1
Comparison Matrix of HEU and Specific Plan Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
Aesthetics
Impact AES-1. Implementation of the
proposed HEU would alter the
development pattern of the city such that
scenic views of and from public
viewpoints could be adversely affected.
Potential future new development
throughout the city could block views of a
scenic vista from some public viewpoints.
However, this would occur on individual
sites and would be limited. This impact
would be less than significant
None required.
LTS =
Impact AES-2. There are no designated or
eligible Scenic Highways in Berkeley or
with substantial views of Berkeley.
Implementation of the proposed HEU not
damage scenic resources visible from a
Scenic Highway. No impact would occur.
None required.
None =
Impact AES-3. Berkeley is urbanized and
future development under the proposed
HEU would not conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality. This impact would be less
than significant.
None required.
LTS =
Impact AES-4. Development facilitated by
the proposed HEU would create new
None required. LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-2
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
sources of light or glare that could
adversely affect daytime or nighttime
views in the area. However, Berkeley is
already largely built out with sources of
light and glare throughout the city and
development would not substantially add
to existing light and glare. With
compliance with existing regulations, this
impact would be less than significant
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. The proposed HEU would
not conflict with the control measures
within the 2017 Clean Air Plan, and VMT
increase from the project would be less
than the project’s project population
increase. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.
None required.
LTS =
Impact AQ-2 (Construction). Construction
facilitated by the project would
temporarily increase air pollutant
emissions, which would affect local air
quality.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure AQ-1
and the City’s Standard Conditions of
Approval would reduce construction
emissions. This impact would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction
Measures. As part of the City’s development
approval process, the City shall require
applicants for future development projects
within the project sites to comply with the
current Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s basic control measures for reducing
construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2,
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the
May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines), outlined
below.
LTS
=
The potential additional units from
the proposed project could
incrementally increase the impact,
however the Mitigation Measure
would not change. With MM AQ-1
the impact would be less than
significant.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-3
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times a day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other
loose material off- site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-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.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be
limited to 15 miles per hour.
5. 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.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by
shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five
minutes (as required by the California Airborne
Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485
of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained
and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacture’s specifications. All equipment
shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper conditions
prior to operation.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-4
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
8. 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 number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Impact AQ-2 (Operation). VMT from the
project would increase at a lower rate
compared to population growth
facilitated by the project. Therefore,
operational impacts related to criteria
pollutants would be less than significant.
None required.
=
The Specific Plan could result in an
increase of up to 11,250 in
population over that assumed in the
2023 HEU EIR, however, as
discussed in TRA-2, the Specific Plan
Area is entirely located within a Low
VMT Area and Transit Priority Area,
which would result in a less-than-
significant VMT impact.
Impact AQ-3. Construction activities for
individual projects lasting longer than two
months or located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. Additionally,
development facilitated by the project
would site new sensitive land uses near
Interstate 580/80 which may expose
them to substantial pollutant
concentrations. This impact would be less
than significant with mitigation.
AQ-2 Construction Health Risk Assessment. For
individual projects (excluding ADUs, single-
family residences, and duplexes) where
construction activities would occur within 1,000
feet of sensitive receptors, would last longer
than two months, and would not utilize Tier 4
and/or alternative fuel construction equipment,
the project applicant shall prepare a
construction health risk assessment (HRA). The
HRA shall determine potential risk and compare
the risk to the following BAAQMD thresholds:
▪ Non-compliance with Qualified Community
Risk Reduction Plan;
LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-5
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
▪ Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
▪ Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard
Index (Chronic or Acute); or
▪ Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3
annual average
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
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-6
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
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.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-7
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
The applicant shall inform occupants regarding
the proper use of any installed air filtration
system.
Impact AQ-4. Development facilitated by
the project would not create
objectionable odors that could affect a
substantial number of people. This impact
would be less than significant
None required.
LTS =
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. Development facilitated by
the proposed HEU may result in direct or
indirect impacts to special-status species
or their associated habitats, and impacts
to nesting birds. This impact would be
less than significant.
No MM required.
COA Nesting Bird
LTS =
Impact BIO-2. Implementation of the
proposed HEU may directly or indirectly
impact riparian habitat, sensitive natural
communities, or protected wetlands in
the City of Berkeley. Implementation of
federal, State, and local regulations and
policies would ensure riparian habitat and
wetlands are not significantly impacted.
This impact would be less than
significant.
No MM required.
BMC Ch. 17.08
LTS =
Impact BIO-3. Implementation of the
proposed HEU may result in impacts to
state or federally protected wetlands.
This impact would be less than
significant.
No MM required.
BMC Ch. 17.08
LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-8
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
Impact BIO-4. Implementation of the
proposed HEU would not substantially
impede the movement of native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors with
compliance with existing and proposed
regulations. This impact would be less
than significant.
No MM required.
BMC Ch. 17.08
LTS =
Impact BIO-5. Implementation of the
proposed HEU would not conflict with
local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance. This
impact would be less than significant.
None required.
LTS =
Impact BIO-6. Implementation of the
proposed HEU would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan. No impact would
occur.
None required.
LTS =
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. Development
accommodated by the proposed Housing
Element Update could adversely affect
known and previously unidentified
historic-period resources. Impacts to
historic-period resources would be
CUL-1 Historic Context Statement, Cultural
Resources Survey and Designations. During the
period of this Housing Element, the City should
conduct a citywide historic context statement
and a cultural resource survey to identify
historic resources, with priority given to sites in
Significant
and
Unavoidable
=
Consistent with MM CUL-2,
assessments on individual sites will
be required. Analysis for the
subsequent projects can rely on the
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-9
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
significant and unavoidable with
mitigation.
the EIR Site Inventory, to determine if there are
designed built environment features which are
over 40 years of age proposed to be altered or
demolished. Designation of historic or cultural
resources should be conducted by the
Landmarks Preservation Commission pursuant
to 3.24.260 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.
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
SU, if needed, and a project specific
EIR would not be required.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-10
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
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)).
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-11
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
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 CEQA Review
Document 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 CEQA Review Document 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.
Impact CUL-2. Development
accommodated by the housing element
update could adversely affect identified
and previously unidentified
archaeological Resources. Impacts would
No MM required.
Archaeological Resources COA.
LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-12
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
be less than significant with required
adherence to the City’s Standard
Conditions of Approval for archaeological
resources.
Impact CUL-3. Ground-disturbing
activities associated with development
under the housing element update could
result in damage to or destruction of
human burials. Impacts would be less
than significant through adherence to
state health and safety code section
7050.5 and public resources code section
5097.98.
No MM required.
Human Remains COA.
LTS =
Cumulative Impact: Development
pursuant to the Housing Element Update
and the LRDP would have the potential to
impact historical resources. Historic-
period resources could be vulnerable to
development activities that could result in
damage to or demolition of cultural
resources. As noted above in CUL-2, the
proposed project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to
historical resources. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2
would reduce or avoid some but not all
potential impacts to historical resources
in Berkeley. Therefore, cumulative
historical resources impacts would be
No feasible mitigation measures have been
identified.
Cumulatively
considerable
impact.
=
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-13
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
significant, and the project’s contribution
would be cumulatively considerable.
Energy
Impact E-1. Project construction and
operation would require temporary and
long-term consumption of energy
resources. However, with adherence to
State and local regulations, the project
would not result in the wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources. This impact would
be less than significant.
No MM required.
LTS =
Impact E-2. The proposed HEU would be
consistent with the State plans and
General Plan policies related to energy
efficiency and utilizing renewable energy.
This impact would be less than
significant.
None required.
LTS =
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1. A portion of Berkeley is
located within the Hayward Fault zone.
Development facilitated by the proposed
HEU is 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, implementation of State-
mandated building standards and
No MM required.
LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-14
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act
Earthquake Fault Act, the CBC, the
Berkeley General Plan’s policies and
actions, and the BMC would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level.
Impact GEO-2. With adherence to
applicable laws and regulations, the
proposed project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.
No MM required.
LTS =
Impact GEO-3. Portions of Berkeley are
located on expansive soils. However, with
required implementation of standard
engineering practices, impacts associated
with unstable or expansive soils would be
less than significant.
No MM required.
LTS =
Impact GEO-4. The proposed project
would not include septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems.
No impact would occur.
None required.
No Impact =
Impact GEO-5. Development facilitated by
the proposed HEU has the potential to
impact paleontological resources. This
impact would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
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:
LTS with
Mitigation =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-15
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
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:
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
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-16
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
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 recommend that monitoring be reduced to
periodic spot-checking or ceased entirely.
Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new
ground disturbances are required, and
reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered
by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist at
that time. In the event of a fossil discovery by
the paleontological monitor or construction
personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of
the find shall cease. A Qualified Professional
Paleontologist shall evaluate the find before
restarting construction activity in the area. If it
is determined that the fossil(s) is (are)
scientifically significant, the Qualified
Professional Paleontologist shall complete the
following conditions to mitigate impacts to
significant fossil resources.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-17
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
Upon completion of ground disturbing activity
(and curation of fossils if necessary) the
Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall
prepare a final CEQA Review Document
describing the results of the paleontological
monitoring efforts associated with the project.
The CEQA Review Document shall include a
summary of the field and laboratory methods,
an overview of the project geology and
paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an
analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their
scientific significance, and recommendations.
The CEQA Review Document shall be submitted
to the City. If the monitoring efforts produced
fossils, then a copy of the CEQA Review
Document shall also be submitted to the
designated museum repository.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1. Future development
under the proposed HEU would not
directly or indirectly generate GHG
emissions that would have a significant
effect on the environment. GHG
emissions from the project would not
exceed BAAQMD 2031 interpolated
thresholds. This impact would be less
than significant.
None required.
LTS
=
The GHG analysis was updated
because BMC Section 12.80 was
repealed on June 4, 2024 by
Ordinance 7907-NS and to consider
the potential increase in units and
population from implementation of
the proposed projects.
The findings are summarized in the
GHG section of this Report and the
detailed analysis is included in
Appendix B.
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-18
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
Impact GHG-2. The proposed HEU would
not conflict with GHG reduction goals and
policies in the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan
Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, or
the City’s CAP. This impact would be less
than significant.
None required.
LTS =
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the
proposed HEU would facilitate new
residential development in Berkeley.
Proposed new residential uses would not
involve the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
However, construction of new residences
could result in an increase in the overall
routine, transport, use and disposal of
hazardous materials in Berkeley for
construction activities. Nonetheless,
required compliance with applicable
regulations related to hazardous
materials and compliance with General
Plan policies would minimize the risk of
releases and exposure to these materials.
Impacts would be less than significant.
No MM required.
Toxics COA
LTS =
Impact HAZ-2. Implementation of the
proposed HEU may result in hazardous
emissions or handling of hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school. However, compliance
No MM required.
Toxics COA
LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-19
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
with existing regulatory requirements
would minimize risks to schools and
students, resulting in a less than
significant impact.
Impact HAZ-3. Implementation of the
proposed HEU would accommodate
development on or near hazardous
materials sites. However, compliance
with applicable regulations and the City’s
Standard Conditions of Approval requiring
site characterization and cleanup would
minimize hazards from development on
contaminated sites. This impact would be
less than significant.
No MM required.
Toxics COA
LTS =
Impact HAZ-4. There are no airports
within two miles of the Berkeley, and
Berkeley is not within the influence area
of an airport. No impact would occur.
None required.
No Impact =
Impact HAZ-5. The proposed HEU would
not result in physical changes that could
interfere with or impair emergency
response or evacuation. Therefore, the
project would not result in interference
with these types of adopted plans. This
impact would be less than significant.
None required.
LTS =
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1. Future development under
the proposed HEU would involve ground-
disturbing activities and the use of heavy
machinery that could release materials,
No MM required.
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-20
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
including sediments and fuels, which
could adversely affect water quality.
Operation of potential future
development could also result in
discharges to storm drains that could be
contaminated and affect downstream
waters. However, compliance with
required permits and existing regulations,
and implementation of Best Management
Practices contained therein, would
ensure that potential water quality
impacts would be less than significant.
Impact HYD-2. Future development
facilitated under the proposed HEU
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. Further,
implementation of low impact
development measures and on-site
infiltration required under the C.3
provisions of the MRP, and compliance
with the Berkeley Municipal Code would
increase the potential for groundwater
recharge. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No MM required.
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
LTS =
Impact HYD-3. Development under the
proposed HEU would not substantially
No MM required.
LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-21
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
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 or 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. Impacts related to
drainage patterns would be less than
significant.
Impact HYD-4. Development under the
proposed HEU would place housing and
other structures within FEMA-designated
Flood Hazard Areas and tsunami zones.
However, compliance with the General
Plan, the BMC, and the California Health
and Safety Code would reduce potential
effects associated with flood events. This
impact would be less than significant.
No MM required.
LTS =
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1. The proposed HEU includes
policies and programs to encourage
housing development on underutilized
and vacant sites and along established
commercial corridors and neighborhoods.
Development under the proposed HEU
would not physically divide an established
community. No impact would occur.
None required.
No Impact =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-22
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
Impact LU-2. The proposed HEU would be
consistent with the goals and policies of
Plan Bay Area 2050, the Berkeley General
Plan, and the BMC. This impact would be
less than significant.
No MM required.
LTS =
Noise
Impact NOI-1. Construction associated
with housing development
accommodated under the proposed HEU
would be required to comply with the
allowed daytime construction hours as
set forth in the Berkeley Municipal Code
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 driving near noise-sensitive land uses
that would exceed the applicable FTA
daytime noise limits. Implementation of
City Standard Conditions of Approval for
construction noise would reduce
construction noise levels, but may not
reduce them to below thresholds for
every project. Therefore, impacts
generated by temporary construction
noise would be significant and
unavoidable.
No feasible mitigation measures have been
identified.
Significant
and
Unavoidable
=
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-23
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
Impact NOI-2. Housing development
accommodated under the proposed HEU
could include mechanical equipment (i.e.,
HVAC), delivery and trash trucks, and
other noise-generating activities.
However, such activities would be similar
to the existing noise environment. In
addition, on-site activities would be
required to comply with applicable noise
standards in the Berkeley Municipal Code.
Furthermore, while housing development
would generate vehicle trips in the city,
the increase in mobile noise would not
result in a perceptible (3-dBA or greater)
noise increase. Permanent noise
increases due to operation of new
development under the proposed HEU
would be less than significant.
No MM required.
LTS
The HEU’s projected buildout of
19,098 units results in a 5.5%
increase in vehicle trips, which
equates to an increase of 0.2 dBA –
well below the 3dBA threshold.
The maximum Specific Plan buildout
of 4,500 additional units over the
HEU’s projected buildout, is
approximately a 24% increase in
units. This increase in units would
not result in a large enough increase
in vehicle trips to exceed the 3 dBA
threshold. Even under a
conservative, proportional
assumption (i.e., trips – and thus
noise – scale with units), a ≤25%
increase over 0.2 dBA would be
≤0.25 dBA, which remains well
below the 3 dBA threshold.
Impact NOI-3. Housing development
accommodated under the proposed HEU
would not involve operational activities
that would result in substantial vibration
levels (e.g., use of heavy equipment or
machinery). Construction activities would
be required to implement the City’s
Standard Conditions of Approval that
control vibration. This impact would be
less than significant.
No MM required.
Construction vibration COA
LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-24
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
Impact NOI-4. Housing developments
accommodated under the proposed HEU
would not be exposed to intermittent
noise levels from overhead flight patterns
from airports in the city as there are none
located within the City. Furthermore,
while the project would not emphasize
building housing in the immediate vicinity
of the airport, all residential development
would, nonetheless, be required to
incorporate noise insulation features per
State and local standards to reduce
interior noise levels to below 45 dBA.
Therefore, the impact of airport or
airstrip operations on new development
would be less than significant.
None required.
LTS =
Cumulative Impact: Construction of
future development projects in Berkeley
would produce temporary noise impacts
that would be localized to a project site
and sensitive receivers within the
immediate vicinity. Therefore, only
sensitive receivers located in close
proximity to each construction site would
be potentially affected by each activity.
Nonetheless, construction activities
associated with individual housing
development projects accommodated
under the proposed Housing Element
Update may overlap for some time with
No feasible mitigation measures have been
identified.
Cumulatively
considerable
impact.
=
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-25
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
construction activities for other
development projects. Based on the
locations of the potential housing sites
displayed in Figure 2-4 of Section 2,
Project Description, this could
substantially increase noise levels at
specific neighboring noise-sensitive
receivers since many sites are located in
proximity to each other. Therefore,
concurrent construction of development
projects accommodated under the
proposed Housing Element Update could
result in cumulatively considerable
impacts. This impact would be
cumulatively considerable and cumulative
impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
Population and Housing
Impact POP-1. This EIR assumes full
buildout of 19,098 residential units in
Berkeley through 2031, which equates to
a population increase of an estimated
47,443 residents compared to the
existing population. However, growth
resulting from the project is anticipated
and would not constitute substantial
unplanned population growth. This
impact would be less than significant.
None required.
LTS
=
The HEU buildout estimates a
population increase of 47,443 (or a
38% increase over the 2020
population of 124,563). Utilizing the
same persons per unit assumption
from the HEU of 2.5 for multi-family,
the proposed project’s maximum
buildout of 4,500 additional units
over the HEU’s projected buildout
would result in a population
increase of 11,250. The HEU and the
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-26
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
proposed project would result in a
population increase of 58,068 or a
47% increase over the 2020
population. The Specific Plan and
HEU population increase is
consistent with State requirements
for the RHNA and would be within
the growth forecasts for Northwest
Alameda County in Plan Bay Area
2050, which projects a 57% increase
in population.
Impact POP-2. Implementation of
proposed project would not result in the
displacement of substantial numbers of
people or housing. The proposed project
would facilitate the development of new
housing in accordance with State and
local housing requirements, while
preserving existing residential
neighborhoods. This impact would be less
than significant.
None required.
LTS =
Public Services and Recreation
Impact PS-1. Development facilitated by
the proposed HEU would result in an
increase of population and buildings
within Berkeley. The projected
population increase would increase
demand for fire protection services and
potentially create the need for a new or
altered fire station. However, compliance
None required.
LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-27
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
with policies in the 2020 General Plan
would reduce impacts related to fire
service facilities to a less than significant
level.
Impact PS-2. Development facilitated by
the proposed HEU would result in an
increase in the City’s population. The
projected population increase would
increase demand for police protection
services and potentially create the need
for new or altered police service facilities.
However, compliance with policies in the
2020 General Plan would reduce impacts
related to police facilities to a less than
significant level.
None required.
LTS =
Impact PS-3. Development facilitated
under the proposed HEU would result in
an increase in population in Berkeley,
resulting in the need for additional or
expanded school facilities. However,
Government Code 65995 (b) would
require funding for the provision or
expansion of new school facilities to
offset impacts from new residential
development. Therefore, this impact
would be less than significant.
None required.
LTS =
Impact PS-4. Development associated
with the proposed HEU would increase
the population of Berkeley and the use of
existing parks and recreational facilities.
None required.
LTS
=
The HEU buildout results in a ratio
of parkland per resident of 25.5
acres per 1,000 residents. The
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-28
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
However, additional recreational
opportunities are available adjacent to
the City and donation of parkland
pursuant to the Quimby Act would be
required prior to occupancy of individual
projects. No plans for the expansion or
construction of new parks or recreational
facilities are anticipated. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant.
proposed project increase of 4,500
additional units and 11,500
residents above the HEU Buildout
results in a parkland per resident
ratio of 23.9 per 1,000 residents.
Transportation
Impact TRA-1. The proposed HEU would
not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities. This impact would be less than
significant.
None required.
LTS =
Impact TRA-2. The proposed HEU would
not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b). This impact would be less than
significant.
None required.
LTS
=
The Specific Plan Area is located
within a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
and a Low VMT Area. Additionally,
San Pablo Avenue is a high-quality
transit corridor as defined under
Public Resources Code 21155.
Therefore, residential projects built
as a result of the proposed project
would be presumed less than
significant. Moreover, the HEU VMT
per capita of 10.86 is far below the
impact threshold of 19.38, and the
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-29
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
increase from 19,098 to 23,598
units and 47,500 to 58,750 people
from the maximum buildout of the
proposed project, which is a less
than 25% increase, is not
anticipated to exceed this threshold.
Impact TRA-3. The proposed HEU 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). This impact would be
less than significant.
None required.
LTS =
Impact TRA-4. The proposed HEU would
not have the potential to result in
inadequate emergency access. This
impact would be less than significant.
None required.
LTS =
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1. Development during the
planning period of the proposed HEU
could adversely impact tribal cultural
resources due to ground disturbing
activity during construction. This impact
would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Monitoring. For future
projects that are determined through tribal
consultation to potentially affect tribal cultural
resources, in order to mitigate potential
adverse impacts to Native American cultural
objects and human remains discovered during
construction, tribal cultural monitors will be
retained to monitor work done in areas of Tribal
concern, as determined through tribal
consultation. If Native American cultural objects
and/or human remains are discovered during
construction, work shall be halted within 100
LTS =
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-30
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
feet of the discovery until the objects have been
inspected and evaluated by tribal cultural
monitors and a qualified archaeologist meeting
the Professional Qualifications Standards of the
Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR Part 61). The
archaeologist shall, in accordance with the
appropriate Guidelines, identify and evaluate
the significance of the discovery and develop
recommendations for treatment in consultation
with the affected Tribe to ensure any impacts to
the cultural resource are less than significant.
The preferred mitigation is avoidance. If
avoidance is not feasible, Project impacts shall
be mitigated in consultation with the affected
Tribe consistent with the CEQA Guidelines for
Determining the Significance of and Impacts to
Cultural Resource, Archaeological Historic and
Tribal Cultural Resources. Such mitigation may
include, but is not limited to, additional
archaeological testing, archaeological
monitoring and/or an archaeological data
recovery program. A Native American monitor
shall be retained to monitor the ground
disturbance when it is suspected that a TCR
might be encountered.
Utility and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1. Development under the
proposed HEU would require utility
service and connections for water supply,
wastewater conveyance, and stormwater
No MM required.
LTS
=
The City’s wastewater treatment
capacity is 320 mgd. The existing
average daily flow is 63 mgd and the
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-31
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
conveyance, as well as
telecommunications, electricity, and
natural gas. Existing utility systems for
water, wastewater, stormwater, electric
power, natural gas, and
telecommunications facilities in Berkeley
have sufficient capacity to serve the
project. 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. Impacts
would be less than significant.
HEU buildout would add an
additional 0.77 mgd. Based on the
HEU wastewater generation
assumption of 40 gallons per day
(gdp) for a multi-family unit, the
proposed project buildout of 4,500
units above the Housing Element
maximum buildout would add
180,000 gdp, which is 0.18 mgd and
well within the City’s treatment
capacity of 320 mgd.
Impact UTIL-2. Development under the
proposed HEU would result in an increase
in water demand. However, this increase
in demand can be served by the East Bay
Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) with
demand management measures required
by EBMUD. This impact would be less
than significant.
None required.
LTS
=
The HEU projected increase in water
demand is 0.96 mgd, which is a 0.5
percent increase over the 2030
EBMUD service area demand of 190
mgd. Based on the HEU water use
assumption of 50 gdp per multi-
family unit, the proposed project
buildout would add 225,000 gdp,
which is 0.25 mgd. The HEU and
proposed project buildout would
increase demand in the City by an
estimated 1.21 MGD or 0.64
percent increase to the 2030
EBMUD service area
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-32
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
demand. Similar to the HEU, the
EBMUD UWMP is used to project
water demand with the proposed
project. Similar to the HEU, the
EBMUD UWMP is used to project
water demand with the proposed
project. The EBMUD service area
reduction goal is 153 gallons per
capita per day by 2020. The 2020
CEQA Review Documented GPCD
was 121 GPCD, meeting the target.
Based on the increase of 0.62
percent from project 2030 water
demand, the estimated GPCD with
implementation of the HEU and
projected project would be 129
GPCD, which is below the targeted
153 GPCD.
Impact UTIL-3. Development facilitated
by the project would not generate solid
waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure. The project 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.
Impacts would be less than significant.
None required.
LTS
=
Based on the HEU solid waste
generation rate of 4/lbs/unit/day,
and conversion factor of 1,000
pounds per cubic yard, the
proposed project buildout would
generate 18 cubic yards of solid
waste per day. With Berkeley’s 69%
diversion rate, the proposed project
buildout would generate an
additional 5.58 cubic yards of solid
waste per day, which equates to
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-33
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
2,037 cubic yards per year. The
landfill has a remaining capacity of
52.3 million cubic yards (as of
October, 2025), meaning the
proposed project’s potential
maximum buildout would generate
0.0039% of the current total
remaining landfill capacity per year.
Wildfire
Impact W-1. Development during the
planning period of the proposed HEU
would occur in hillside areas located near
a State Responsibility Area and in a Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The city
employs multiple strategies to reduce the
impairment the HEU would have on
emergency response and evacuation.
Nonetheless, this impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
No feasible mitigation measures have been
identified.
Significant
and
Unavoidable
=
Impact W-2. Implementation of the
proposed HEU would encourage
development in the hillside areas located
near a State Responsibility Area and in a
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. New
development would be required to
comply with extensive regulations and
fire safety provisions in the Berkeley
Municipal Code, including the Fire Code.
Based on the existing regulatory
framework and project review process
No feasible mitigation measures have been
identified.
Significant
and
Unavoidable
=
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-34
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
with Berkeley Fire Department, impacts
would be generally avoided. However, it
remains possible that even with existing
regulations, construction or other human
activities related to development in or
near an SRA or in a VHFHSZ could
exacerbate wildfire risk and expose
existing and new residents to pollutant
concentrations and uncontrolled spread
of a wildfire. Additionally, by increasing
the population of the WUI area, more
people will be directly threatened when a
wildland fire occurs. Therefore, this
impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
Impact W-3. Implementation of the
proposed HEU would encourage
development of housing on inventory
sites and in the Hillside Overlay district
located near a State Responsibility Area
and in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone. The proposed HEU could expose
people and structures to risk due to the
terrain and slope in the Berkeley hills.
This could result in potential risks such as
landslides. This impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
No feasible mitigation measures have been
identified.
Significant
and
Unavoidable
=
Impact W-4. Implementation of the
proposed HEU would encourage
development of housing on inventory
W-1 Undergrounding of Power Drops in the
VHFHSZs. The City shall require that new or
upgraded power drops located in the very high
Significant
and
Unavoidable
=
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-35
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
sites and in the R-, R-2, and R-2a districts
located near a State Responsibility Area
and in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone. However, the area is already
developed and served by existing
infrastructure and it is not anticipated
that installation of new infrastructure or a
substantial increase in the maintenance
of existing infrastructure would occur.
Should additional maintenance or
construction of such infrastructure occur,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
W-1 would reduce the risk of fire during
construction. Overall, this impact would
be significant and unavoidable.
fire hazard severity zone be installed
underground. Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shall submit plans for
undergrounding of power drops.
Cumulative Impact: In and near Berkeley,
the VHFHSZs are located largely along the
WUI borders with the hilly northwestern
areas. Within the geographic scope for
this cumulative analysis, wildfire-related
impacts could be significant if
development is in or near Berkeley’s
VHFHSZ. The proposed LRDP update
would involve improvements and
development in Campus Park, the Hill
Campus West, the Hill Campus East, the
Clark Kerr Campus, and the City Environs
Properties, areas of which fall within the
VHFHSZ. Development within this area
could exacerbate wildfire risks. Like
No feasible mitigation measures have been
identified.
Cumulatively
considerable
impact.
=
Internal – FINAL DRAFT
SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN SEPTEMBER 2026
CEQA REVIEW DOCUMENT/ADDENDUM APPENDIX A: COMPARISON MATRIX OF HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS A-36
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
HE Residual
Impact
Specific Plan
Analysis
development under the proposed HEU,
new development under the LRDP would
be subject to statewide standards for fire
safety in the California Fire Code.
Nonetheless, because the proposed HEU
could exacerbate wildfire risk in a VHFHSZ
and development under the proposed
LRDP update could also exacerbate such
risks, a cumulative impact would occur
and the proposed projects’ contribution
would be cumulatively considerable.
APPENDIX B: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93003
805-644-4455
w w w. r in co n co n su lt ant s. co m
Date: June 24, 2025
Project No: 25-17613
Hannah Chan Smyth
Urban Planning Partners, Inc.
388 17th Street, Suite 230
Oakland, CA 94612
Via Email: [email protected]
Subject: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Analysis for the San Pablo Specific Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element
Dear Mrs. Smyth:
This Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Letter Report was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) to provide GHG emissions modeling scenarios for the City of Berkeley for the proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element. Rincon previously assisted the City in preparing the GHG analysis for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which assumed 90 percent of the natural gas demand would be supplied by electricity. This analysis includes adjustments to the previous modeling effort with the latest California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version (2022) in order to evaluate a revised natural gas scenario. In addition, proposed buildout of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan is greater than the EIR forecast.
Therefore, this analysis also includes modeling to reflect the increased buildout of the Specific Plan.
Methodology
GHG emissions for development facilitated by the City of Berkeley’s 2023-2031 Housing Element EIR were previously calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. In order to provide a direct comparison between model versions, GHG emissions were remodeled using CalEEMod version 2022, the latest available version of the model. Where possible, user inputs from the previous modeling effort were replicated in version 2022 to establish an updated baseline for comparison with the scenarios described below. Consistent with the methodology used for the Housing Element EIR, emissions modeling was conducted for both single-family and multi-family land uses with an anticipated buildout year of 2031. Utility GHG intensity factors were adjusted to match the original model inputs, which reflect the supply of electricity by East Bay Community Energy under their Bright Choice Plan (40 percent renewable). CalEEMod version 2022 does not provide default values for outdoor water consumption by multi-family uses. Therefore, default consumption factors from version 2020 were replicated in the newer model.
Table 1 shows a comparison of GHG emissions between CalEEMod versions 2020 and 2022 using the original EIR’s assumptions, including 90% electrification of the proposed buildout. As shown therein, the updated emissions estimate is 1.9% greater than previously calculated. Both the increased natural gas demand and increased buildout scenarios included later in this analysis were analyzed using the updated emissions estimate as a basis for comparison.
Urban Planning Partners, Inc.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Letter Report
2 Table 1 Emissions Comparison Between CalEEMod Versions CalEEMod Model Version Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e)
V2020 81,985
v2022 83,568
Percent Change 1.9%
See Attachment A for CalEEMod Outputs.
Increased Natural Gas Demand Scenario
Pursuant to Chapter 12.80 of the BMC1, which prohibited the installation of natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings unless granted an exception or public interest exception, it was previously assumed that 90 percent of new development would be all-electric for estimation of the project’s impacts. Since adoption of the Housing Element EIR, new building electrification data has suggested that 30 to 40 percent of new developments would include natural gas connections, resulting in approximately 60 to 70 percent electrification of development facilitated by the plan.
Based on this newly available data reflecting increased natural demand than previously analyzed, GHG emissions for all units modeled as part of the Housing Element EIR were recalculated in CalEEMod with the revised assumption that up to 60 percent of new development would be all-electric and the remainder of units would include natural gas connections. Additional units proposed by the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan were modeled separately as described in the following subsection.
Increased Buildout Scenario
In order to account for the proposed buildout facilitated by the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, a second GHG model was run for the portion of the buildout that was not previously analyzed under the Berkeley Housing Element EIR. According to the City, it is estimated that approximately 3,250 multifamily housing units with a population of up to 8,125 persons were not included in the Housing Element EIR’s buildout assumptions. Therefore, GHG emissions modeling was conducted for the net increase in buildout facilitated by the Specific Plan. This model iteration also accounts for the revised natural gas assumptions described above under Increased Natural Gas Demand Scenario . All units analyzed under this scenario were modeled using the land use subtype “Apartments – Mid Rise” and associated default inputs. Where applicable, the methodology and user inputs from the previous modeling effort were replicated in this model run for consistency.
Results
Increased Natural Gas Demand Scenario
Table 2 shows GHG emissions estimates for the Housing Element with the EIR’s 90% electrification assumption compared to emissions under an increased natural gas demand scenario. As shown therein, GHG emissions would be 83,568 MT CO 2e per year under the 90 percent electrification scenario and 85,759 MT CO2e per year under the 60 percent electrification scenario for difference of 2,191 MT CO2e.
1 Chapter 12.80, Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings, was repealed on June 4, 2024 by Ordinance 7907-NS.
Urban Planning Partners, Inc.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Letter Report
3 Table 2 Increased Natural Gas Scenario GHG Emissions
Scenario Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e)
90% Electrified 83,568
60% Electrified 85,759
Net Difference 2,191
Percent Change 2.6%
See Attachment A for CalEEMod Outputs.
Increased Buildout Scenario
Table 3 shows the net increase in GHG emissions from the addition of units proposed by the Specific Plan that were not previously analyzed as part of the Housing Element EIR. Emissions shown in Table 3 reflect the revised 60% electrification scenario. Net new emissions from the Specific Plan were combined with the adjusted Housing Element emissions from Table 2 to determine total emissions for the plan areas. As shown in Table 3, the additional 3,250 multifamily units with a population of up to 8,125 persons would result in an increase of 14,035 MT CO 2e per year, bringing total emissions to 99,794 MT CO2e per year.
Table 3 Increased Buildout Scenario GHG Emissions
Scenario Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e)
Berkeley Housing Element1 85,7592
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan1 14,035
Total 99,794
See Attachment A for CalEEMod Outputs.
1Reflects the revised 60% electrification scenario.
2 See Table 2
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Lucas Carneiro Bill Vosti, MESM
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Specialist Program Manager, Technical Services Attachments
Attachment 1 CalEEMod Outputs
Attachment 1
CalEEMod Outputs
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 1 / 36
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 2 / 36
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 3 / 36
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 4 / 36
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 5 / 36
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 6 / 36
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 7 / 36
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2
Operational Y ear 2031
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.90
Precipitation (days) 3.40
Location 37.87310585963721, -122.29377329662165
County Alameda
City Berkeley
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1533
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility User Defined
Gas Utility User Defined
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
113 Dwelling Unit 36.7 220,350 1,323,553 — 323 —
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 8 / 36
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 49.3 4,735 4,784 4.31 0.22 10.8 4,967
Mit. 47.5 4,733 4,781 4.31 0.21 10.8 4,962
% Reduced 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5%
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 49.3 4,461 4,510 4.34 0.24 1.82 4,691
Mit. 47.5 4,459 4,506 4.34 0.23 1.82 4,686
% Reduced 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5%
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 49.3 4,395 4,445 4.32 0.22 5.47 4,625
Mit. 47.5 4,394 4,441 4.32 0.22 5.47 4,620
% Reduced 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5%
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.16 728 736 0.72 0.04 0.91 766
Mit. 7.87 727 735 0.72 0.04 0.91 765
% Reduced 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5%
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 9 / 36
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile — 4,507 4,507 0.20 0.20 9.21 4,580
Area 0.00 17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2
Energy — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Water 8.58 43.2 51.7 0.03 0.02 — 58.0
Waste 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Refrig. — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total 49.3 4,735 4,784 4.31 0.22 10.8 4,967
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile — 4,250 4,250 0.23 0.22 0.24 4,321
Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Energy — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Water 8.58 43.2 51.7 0.03 0.02 — 58.0
Waste 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Refrig. — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total 49.3 4,461 4,510 4.34 0.24 1.82 4,691
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile — 4,176 4,176 0.21 0.20 3.89 4,246
Area 0.00 8.45 8.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.48
Energy — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Water 8.58 43.2 51.7 0.03 0.02 — 58.0
Waste 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Refrig. — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total 49.3 4,395 4,445 4.32 0.22 5.47 4,625
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile — 691 691 0.04 0.03 0.64 703
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 10 / 36
Area 0.00 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40
Energy — 27.7 27.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.8
Water 1.42 7.14 8.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.61
Waste 6.74 0.00 6.74 0.67 0.00 — 23.6
Refrig. — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Total 8.16 728 736 0.72 0.04 0.91 766
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile — 4,507 4,507 0.20 0.20 9.21 4,580
Area 0.00 17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2
Energy — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Water 6.86 41.2 48.1 0.02 0.01 — 53.1
Waste 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Refrig. — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total 47.5 4,733 4,781 4.31 0.21 10.8 4,962
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile — 4,250 4,250 0.23 0.22 0.24 4,321
Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Energy — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Water 6.86 41.2 48.1 0.02 0.01 — 53.1
Waste 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Refrig. — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total 47.5 4,459 4,506 4.34 0.23 1.82 4,686
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile — 4,176 4,176 0.21 0.20 3.89 4,246
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 11 / 36
Area 0.00 8.45 8.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.48
Energy — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Water 6.86 41.2 48.1 0.02 0.01 — 53.1
Waste 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Refrig. — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total 47.5 4,394 4,441 4.32 0.22 5.47 4,620
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile — 691 691 0.04 0.03 0.64 703
Area 0.00 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40
Energy — 27.7 27.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.8
Water 1.14 6.83 7.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.80
Waste 6.74 0.00 6.74 0.67 0.00 — 23.6
Refrig. — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Total 7.87 727 735 0.72 0.04 0.91 765
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 4,507 4,507 0.20 0.20 9.21 4,580 Total — 4,507 4,507 0.20 0.20 9.21 4,580
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 4,250 4,250 0.23 0.22 0.24 4,321 Total — 4,250 4,250 0.23 0.22 0.24 4,321
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 12 / 36
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 691 691 0.04 0.03 0.64 703
Total — 691 691 0.04 0.03 0.64 703
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 4,507 4,507 0.20 0.20 9.21 4,580 Total — 4,507 4,507 0.20 0.20 9.21 4,580
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 4,250 4,250 0.23 0.22 0.24 4,321 Total — 4,250 4,250 0.23 0.22 0.24 4,321
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 691 691 0.04 0.03 0.64 703
Total — 691 691 0.04 0.03 0.64 703
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 13 / 36
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Total — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Total — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 27.7 27.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.8
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 14 / 36
Total — 27.7 27.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.8
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Total — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Total — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 — 168
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 27.7 27.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.8 Total — 27.7 27.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.8
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings — — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment — 17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2
Total 0.00 17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 15 / 36
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings — — — — — — —
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings — — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment — 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40
Total 0.00 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings — — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment — 17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2
Total 0.00 17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings — — — — — — —
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 16 / 36
Landscape Equipment — 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40
Total 0.00 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing 8.58 43.2 51.7 0.03 0.02 — 58.0
Total 8.58 43.2 51.7 0.03 0.02 — 58.0
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing 8.58 43.2 51.7 0.03 0.02 — 58.0
Total 8.58 43.2 51.7 0.03 0.02 — 58.0
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing 1.42 7.14 8.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.61 Total 1.42 7.14 8.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.61
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing 6.86 41.2 48.1 0.02 0.01 — 53.1
Total 6.86 41.2 48.1 0.02 0.01 — 53.1
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing 6.86 41.2 48.1 0.02 0.01 — 53.1
Total 6.86 41.2 48.1 0.02 0.01 — 53.1
Annual — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 17 / 36
Single Family Housing 1.14 6.83 7.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.80 Total 1.14 6.83 7.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.80
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Total 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Total 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing 6.74 0.00 6.74 0.67 0.00 — 23.6
Total 6.74 0.00 6.74 0.67 0.00 — 23.6
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Total 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Total 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Annual — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 18 / 36
Single Family Housing 6.74 0.00 6.74 0.67 0.00 — 23.6
Total 6.74 0.00 6.74 0.67 0.00 — 23.6
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Total — — — — — 0.26 0.26
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Annual — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 19 / 36
Single Family Housing — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Total — — — — — 0.26 0.26
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 20 / 36
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 21 / 36
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 22 / 36
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 23 / 36
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 24 / 36
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 25 / 36
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
1,067 1,078 966 384,698 6,240 6,306 5,652 2,250,495
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
1,067 1,078 966 384,698 6,240 6,306 5,652 2,250,495
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 26 / 36
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
446208.75 148,736 0.00 0.00 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 27 / 36
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 0.00 135 0.0000 0.0000 522,308
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 0.00 135 0.0000 0.0000 522,308
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 4,012,726 18,378,911
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 3,210,181 18,378,911
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 28 / 36
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 75.5 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 75.5 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 29 / 36
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 30 / 36
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 7.10 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 7.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 31 / 36
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 32 / 36
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 3.12
AQ-PM 39.2
AQ-DPM 77.5
Drinking Water 4.21
Lead Risk Housing 61.6
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 61.3
Traffic 31.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 65.0
Groundwater 97.0
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 33 / 36
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 93.0
Impaired Water Bodies 90.1
Solid Waste 9.67
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 81.1
Cardio-vascular 46.8
Low Birth Weights 44.5
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 26.4
Housing 55.1
Linguistic 6.27
Poverty 35.6
Unemployment 49.9
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 59.38662903
Employed 93.82779417
Median HI 46.50327217
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 88.88746311
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 74.06646991
Transportation —
Auto Access 13.06300526
Active commuting 96.25304761
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 34 / 36
Social —
2-parent households 16.38650071
Voting 76.22225074
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 4.516874118
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 82.84357757
Supermarket access 74.27178237
Tree canopy 46.11831131
Housing —
Homeownership 47.94045939
Housing habitability 50.7121776
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 19.67150006 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 46.67008854
Uncrowded housing 60.05389452
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 80.68779674
Arthritis 60.6
Asthma ER Admissions 13.2
High Blood Pressure 62.1
Cancer (excluding skin) 38.7
Asthma 61.7
Coronary Heart Disease 79.3
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 88.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 75.2
Life Expectancy at Birth 71.4
Cognitively Disabled 85.7
Physically Disabled 84.3
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 35 / 36
Heart Attack ER Admissions 59.6
Mental Health Not Good 82.3
Chronic Kidney Disease 64.9
Obesity 68.7
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 84.3
Stroke 70.4
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 38.6
Current Smoker 87.1
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 83.8
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 92.8
Elderly 43.9
English Speaking 71.2
Foreign-born 47.0
Outdoor Workers 90.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 28.0
Traffic Density 29.2
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 21.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.1
Berkeley HE Single Fam 90% Electrified v2 Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 36 / 36
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 54.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 82.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Characteristics: Utility Information East Bay Community Energy is the primary electricity provider. Intensity factors adjusted for consistency with Berkeley Housing Element methodology.
Land Use Based on EIR growth assumption of 113 single-family units and 323 new residents. Default acreage, building square footage, and landscape area.
Operations: Hearths No woodstoves or fireplaces
Operations: Energy Use Assume 90% of development will not include natural gas pursuant to BMC Section 12.80 (Natural gas ban). Assumes 100% offset of electricity consumption by onsite PV solar.
Operations: Water and Waste Water EBMUD Wastewater treatment plant 100 percent aerobic
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 1 / 39
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report
T able of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use T ypes
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 2 / 39
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment T ype
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment T ype
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 3 / 39
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment T ype
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation T ype
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation T ype - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use T ype - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation T ype - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use T ype - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 4 / 39
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 5 / 39
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover T ype
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 6 / 39
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 7 / 39
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified
Operational Y ear 2031
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.90
Precipitation (days) 3.40
Location 37.87310585963721, -122.29377329662165
County Alameda
City Berkeley
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
T AZ 1533
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility User Defined
Gas Utility User Defined
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use T ypes
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise
17,427 Dwelling Unit 459 16,729,920 0.00 — 42,630 —
Condo/T ownhouse 1,570 Dwelling Unit 98.1 1,664,200 0.00 — 4,490 —
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 8 / 39
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6,787 518,912 525,699 687 21.5 1,064 550,338
Mit. 6,761 518,883 525,644 687 21.4 1,064 550,265
% Reduced < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6,787 490,429 497,216 690 23.4 156 521,604
Mit. 6,761 490,401 497,162 690 23.4 156 521,531
% Reduced < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6,787 469,339 476,126 687 21.4 512 500,206
Mit. 6,761 469,310 476,072 687 21.4 512 500,133
% Reduced < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1,124 77,704 78,828 114 3.55 84.7 82,815
Mit. 1,119 77,700 78,819 114 3.54 84.7 82,803
% Reduced < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 9 / 39
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Sector BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile — 464,159 464,159 20.2 21.2 932 471,906
Area 0.00 2,882 2,882 0.12 0.02 — 2,892
Energy — 50,304 50,304 0.57 0.01 — 50,321
Water 128 1,567 1,695 0.44 0.28 — 1,789
Waste 6,659 0.00 6,659 666 0.00 — 23,298
Refrig. — — — — — 132 132
T otal 6,787 518,912 525,699 687 21.5 1,064 550,338
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile — 438,559 438,559 23.4 23.1 24.2 446,064
Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Energy — 50,304 50,304 0.57 0.01 — 50,321
Water 128 1,567 1,695 0.44 0.28 — 1,789
Waste 6,659 0.00 6,659 666 0.00 — 23,298
Refrig. — — — — — 132 132
T otal 6,787 490,429 497,216 690 23.4 156 521,604
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile — 416,047 416,047 20.8 21.1 380 423,241
Area 0.00 1,421 1,421 0.06 0.01 — 1,426
Energy — 50,304 50,304 0.57 0.01 — 50,321
Water 128 1,567 1,695 0.44 0.28 — 1,789
Waste 6,659 0.00 6,659 666 0.00 — 23,298
Refrig. — — — — — 132 132
T otal 6,787 469,339 476,126 687 21.4 512 500,206
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile — 68,881 68,881 3.45 3.50 62.9 70,072
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 10 / 39
Area 0.00 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 236
Energy — 8,328 8,328 0.09 < 0.005 — 8,331
Water 21.1 259 281 0.07 0.05 — 296
Waste 1,102 0.00 1,102 110 0.00 — 3,857
Refrig. — — — — — 21.8 21.8
T otal 1,124 77,704 78,828 114 3.55 84.7 82,815
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Sector BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile — 464,159 464,159 20.2 21.2 932 471,906
Area 0.00 2,882 2,882 0.12 0.02 — 2,892
Energy — 50,304 50,304 0.57 0.01 — 50,321
Water 102 1,538 1,641 0.35 0.22 — 1,716
Waste 6,659 0.00 6,659 666 0.00 — 23,298
Refrig. — — — — — 132 132
T otal 6,761 518,883 525,644 687 21.4 1,064 550,265
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile — 438,559 438,559 23.4 23.1 24.2 446,064
Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Energy — 50,304 50,304 0.57 0.01 — 50,321
Water 102 1,538 1,641 0.35 0.22 — 1,716
Waste 6,659 0.00 6,659 666 0.00 — 23,298
Refrig. — — — — — 132 132
T otal 6,761 490,401 497,162 690 23.4 156 521,531
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile — 416,047 416,047 20.8 21.1 380 423,241
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 11 / 39
Area 0.00 1,421 1,421 0.06 0.01 — 1,426
Energy — 50,304 50,304 0.57 0.01 — 50,321
Water 102 1,538 1,641 0.35 0.22 — 1,716
Waste 6,659 0.00 6,659 666 0.00 — 23,298
Refrig. — — — — — 132 132
T otal 6,761 469,310 476,072 687 21.4 512 500,133
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile — 68,881 68,881 3.45 3.50 62.9 70,072
Area 0.00 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 236
Energy — 8,328 8,328 0.09 < 0.005 — 8,331
Water 16.9 255 272 0.06 0.04 — 284
Waste 1,102 0.00 1,102 110 0.00 — 3,857
Refrig. — — — — — 21.8 21.8
T otal 1,119 77,700 78,819 114 3.54 84.7 82,803
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 409,022 409,022 17.8 18.7 821 415,848 Condo/T ownhouse — 55,138 55,138 2.40 2.52 111 56,058
T otal — 464,159 464,159 20.2 21.2 932 471,906
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 386,462 386,462 20.6 20.4 21.3 393,076
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 12 / 39
Condo/T ownhouse — 52,097 52,097 2.78 2.75 2.87 52,988
T otal — 438,559 438,559 23.4 23.1 24.2 446,064
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 61,121 61,121 3.06 3.10 55.8 62,177 Condo/T ownhouse — 7,761 7,761 0.39 0.39 7.09 7,895
T otal — 68,881 68,881 3.45 3.50 62.9 70,072
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 409,022 409,022 17.8 18.7 821 415,848 Condo/T ownhouse — 55,138 55,138 2.40 2.52 111 56,058
T otal — 464,159 464,159 20.2 21.2 932 471,906
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 386,462 386,462 20.6 20.4 21.3 393,076 Condo/T ownhouse — 52,097 52,097 2.78 2.75 2.87 52,988
T otal — 438,559 438,559 23.4 23.1 24.2 446,064
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 61,121 61,121 3.06 3.10 55.8 62,177 Condo/T ownhouse — 7,761 7,761 0.39 0.39 7.09 7,895
T otal — 68,881 68,881 3.45 3.50 62.9 70,072
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 13 / 39
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 43,916 43,916 0.00 0.00 — 43,916
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 43,916 43,916 0.00 0.00 — 43,916
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 43,916 43,916 0.00 0.00 — 43,916
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 43,916 43,916 0.00 0.00 — 43,916
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 7,271 7,271 0.00 0.00 — 7,271
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 7,271 7,271 0.00 0.00 — 7,271
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 43,916 43,916 0.00 0.00 — 43,916
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 43,916 43,916 0.00 0.00 — 43,916
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 43,916 43,916 0.00 0.00 — 43,916
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 43,916 43,916 0.00 0.00 — 43,916
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 7,271 7,271 0.00 0.00 — 7,271
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 7,271 7,271 0.00 0.00 — 7,271
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 14 / 39
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 6,388 6,388 0.57 0.01 — 6,405
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 6,388 6,388 0.57 0.01 — 6,405
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 6,388 6,388 0.57 0.01 — 6,405
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 6,388 6,388 0.57 0.01 — 6,405
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 1,058 1,058 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,060
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 1,058 1,058 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,060
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 6,388 6,388 0.57 0.01 — 6,405
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 6,388 6,388 0.57 0.01 — 6,405
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 6,388 6,388 0.57 0.01 — 6,405
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 6,388 6,388 0.57 0.01 — 6,405
Annual — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 15 / 39
Apartments Mid Rise — 1,058 1,058 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,060
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 1,058 1,058 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,060
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Source BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings— — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment — 2,882 2,882 0.12 0.02 — 2,892
T otal 0.00 2,882 2,882 0.12 0.02 — 2,892
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings— — — — — — —
T otal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings— — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment — 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 236
T otal 0.00 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 236
4.3.2. Mitigated
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 16 / 39
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Source BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings— — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment — 2,882 2,882 0.12 0.02 — 2,892
T otal 0.00 2,882 2,882 0.12 0.02 — 2,892
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings— — — — — — —
T otal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer Products — — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings— — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment — 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 236
T otal 0.00 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 236
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 8.58 1,434 1,442 0.03 0.02 — 1,448
Condo/T ownhouse 119 134 253 0.41 0.26 — 340
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 17 / 39
T otal 128 1,567 1,695 0.44 0.28 — 1,789
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 8.58 1,434 1,442 0.03 0.02 — 1,448
Condo/T ownhouse 119 134 253 0.41 0.26 — 340
T otal 128 1,567 1,695 0.44 0.28 — 1,789
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 1.42 237 239 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 240
Condo/T ownhouse 19.7 22.1 41.8 0.07 0.04 — 56.4
T otal 21.1 259 281 0.07 0.05 — 296
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 6.86 1,432 1,439 0.02 0.01 — 1,444
Condo/T ownhouse 95.3 107 202 0.33 0.21 — 272
T otal 102 1,538 1,641 0.35 0.22 — 1,716
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 6.86 1,432 1,439 0.02 0.01 — 1,444
Condo/T ownhouse 95.3 107 202 0.33 0.21 — 272
T otal 102 1,538 1,641 0.35 0.22 — 1,716
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 1.14 237 238 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 239
Condo/T ownhouse 15.8 17.7 33.5 0.05 0.03 — 45.1
T otal 16.9 255 272 0.06 0.04 — 284
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 18 / 39
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 6,025 0.00 6,025 602 0.00 — 21,078
Condo/T ownhouse 635 0.00 635 63.4 0.00 — 2,220
T otal 6,659 0.00 6,659 666 0.00 — 23,298
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 6,025 0.00 6,025 602 0.00 — 21,078
Condo/T ownhouse 635 0.00 635 63.4 0.00 — 2,220
T otal 6,659 0.00 6,659 666 0.00 — 23,298
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 997 0.00 997 99.7 0.00 — 3,490
Condo/T ownhouse 105 0.00 105 10.5 0.00 — 368
T otal 1,102 0.00 1,102 110 0.00 — 3,857
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 6,025 0.00 6,025 602 0.00 — 21,078
Condo/T ownhouse 635 0.00 635 63.4 0.00 — 2,220
T otal 6,659 0.00 6,659 666 0.00 — 23,298
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 6,025 0.00 6,025 602 0.00 — 21,078
Condo/T ownhouse 635 0.00 635 63.4 0.00 — 2,220
T otal 6,659 0.00 6,659 666 0.00 — 23,298
Annual — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 19 / 39
Apartments Mid Rise 997 0.00 997 99.7 0.00 — 3,490
Condo/T ownhouse 105 0.00 105 10.5 0.00 — 368
T otal 1,102 0.00 1,102 110 0.00 — 3,857
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — 120 120
Condo/T ownhouse — — — — — 11.9 11.9
T otal — — — — — 132 132
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — 120 120
Condo/T ownhouse — — — — — 11.9 11.9
T otal — — — — — 132 132
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — 19.8 19.8
Condo/T ownhouse — — — — — 1.97 1.97
T otal — — — — — 21.8 21.8
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — 120 120
Condo/T ownhouse — — — — — 11.9 11.9
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 20 / 39
T otal — — — — — 132 132
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — 120 120
Condo/T ownhouse — — — — — 11.9 11.9
T otal — — — — — 132 132
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — 19.8 19.8
Condo/T ownhouse — — — — — 1.97 1.97
T otal — — — — — 21.8 21.8
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment T ype
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Equipment T ype BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Equipment T ype BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 21 / 39
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment T ype
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Equipment T ype BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Equipment T ype BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment T ype
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 22 / 39
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Equipment T ype BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Equipment T ype BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation T ype
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation T ype - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Vegetation BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 23 / 39
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use T ype - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Species BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 24 / 39
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation T ype - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Vegetation BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use T ype - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 25 / 39
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily , ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily , MT/yr for annual) Species BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 26 / 39
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use T ype T rips/Weekday T rips/Saturday T rips/Sunday T rips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid
Rise
94,803 85,567 71,276 32,894,708 554,600 500,567 416,969 192,435,070 Condo/T ownhouse 11,492 12,780 9,860 4,176,716 67,231 74,762 57,679 24,433,919
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use T ype T rips/Weekday T rips/Saturday T rips/Sunday T rips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid
Rise
94,803 85,567 71,276 32,894,708 554,600 500,567 416,969 192,435,070 Condo/T ownhouse 11,492 12,780 9,860 4,176,716 67,231 74,762 57,679 24,433,919
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth T ype Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 27 / 39
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Condo/T ownhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth T ype Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0