Cities Index.
Agenda packet, first session

Berkeley City Council
September 29, 2026

Document
Agenda packet, first session
Meeting
September 29, 2026
Body
Berkeley City Council
Pages
1,380
Original file
102.2 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. The city's original file is the official record.
Page 545 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 28 / 39
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

5.10.2. 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)
37248093 12,416,031 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

Page 222 of 990 ends
Page 546 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 29 / 39
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) Apartments Mid Rise 118,735,584 135 0.0000 0.0000 19,931,115 Condo/T ownhouse 0.00 135 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

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) Apartments Mid Rise 118,735,584 135 0.0000 0.0000 19,931,115 Condo/T ownhouse 0.00 135 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 4,012,726 780,308,430
Condo/T ownhouse 55,752,035 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 3,210,181 780,308,430
Condo/T ownhouse 44,601,628 0.00

Page 223 of 990 ends
Page 547 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 30 / 39

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 11,178 —
Condo/T ownhouse 1,177 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 11,178 —
Condo/T ownhouse 1,177 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use T ype Equipment T ype Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Condo/T ownhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/T ownhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated

Page 224 of 990 ends
Page 548 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 31 / 39
Land Use T ype Equipment T ype Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Condo/T ownhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/T ownhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

Page 225 of 990 ends
Page 549 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 32 / 39

5.17. User Defined
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use T ype Vegetation Soil T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use T ype Vegetation Soil T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover T ype

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
T ree T ype Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

Page 226 of 990 ends
Page 550 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 33 / 39
T ree T ype 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
T emperature 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
T emperature 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 T emperature 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

Page 227 of 990 ends
Page 551 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 34 / 39
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 T emperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
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.

Page 228 of 990 ends
Page 552 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 35 / 39
Indicator Result for Project Census T ract
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
T oxic Releases 61.3
T raffic 31.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 65.0
Groundwater 97.0
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

Page 229 of 990 ends
Page 553 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 36 / 39
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 T ract
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
T ransportation —
Auto Access 13.06300526
Active commuting 96.25304761
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
T ree 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 —

Page 230 of 990 ends
Page 554 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 37 / 39
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
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

Page 231 of 990 ends
Page 555 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 38 / 39
English Speaking 71.2
Foreign-born 47.0
Outdoor Workers 90.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 28.0
T raffic Density 29.2
T raffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 21.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census T ract
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.

Page 232 of 990 ends
Page 556 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 90% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 39 / 39

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 17,427 multi-family units, 1,570 condo/townhome units and 47,120 new residents. ADUs included as
condo/townhouse for a conservative assumption. Default acreage and building square footage.

Landscape area set to zero, outdoor water consumption estimated at rate of 41,075 gal/unit.

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). T otals combined and added to Apartments row.

Operations: Water and Waste Water EBMUD Wastewater treatment plant 100 percent aerobic. Outdoor water consumption based on v2020 defaults per multifamily unit in lieu of available data in v2022.

Page 233 of 990 ends
Page 557 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 1 / 36
Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% 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

Page 234 of 990 ends
Page 558 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 T ype

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment T ype

Page 235 of 990 ends
Page 559 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 3 / 36

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

Page 236 of 990 ends
Page 560 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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

Page 237 of 990 ends
Page 561 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 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

Page 238 of 990 ends
Page 562 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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

Page 239 of 990 ends
Page 563 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 60% 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
Single Family
Housing
113 Dwelling Unit 36.7 220,350 1,323,553 — 323 —

Page 240 of 990 ends
Page 564 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 5,237 5,286 4.36 0.22 10.8 5,471
Mit. 47.5 5,235 5,283 4.35 0.21 10.8 5,466
% Reduced 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5%
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 49.3 4,963 5,012 4.39 0.24 1.82 5,194
Mit. 47.5 4,961 5,009 4.38 0.23 1.82 5,189
% Reduced 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5%
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 49.3 4,898 4,947 4.37 0.22 5.47 5,128
Mit. 47.5 4,896 4,943 4.36 0.22 5.47 5,123
% Reduced 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5%
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.16 811 819 0.72 0.04 0.91 849
Mit. 7.87 811 818 0.72 0.04 0.91 848
% Reduced 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

Page 241 of 990 ends
Page 565 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
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
T otal 49.3 5,237 5,286 4.36 0.22 10.8 5,471
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 — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
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
T otal 49.3 4,963 5,012 4.39 0.24 1.82 5,194
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 — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
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
T otal 49.3 4,898 4,947 4.37 0.22 5.47 5,128
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile — 691 691 0.04 0.03 0.64 703

Page 242 of 990 ends
Page 566 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 10 / 36
Area 0.00 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40
Energy — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111
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
T otal 8.16 811 819 0.72 0.04 0.91 849

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 — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
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
T otal 47.5 5,235 5,283 4.35 0.21 10.8 5,466
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 — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
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
T otal 47.5 4,961 5,009 4.38 0.23 1.82 5,189
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile — 4,176 4,176 0.21 0.20 3.89 4,246

Page 243 of 990 ends
Page 567 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 11 / 36
Area 0.00 8.45 8.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.48
Energy — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
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
T otal 47.5 4,896 4,943 4.36 0.22 5.47 5,123
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 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111
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
T otal 7.87 811 818 0.72 0.04 0.91 848

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 T otal — 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 T otal — 4,250 4,250 0.23 0.22 0.24 4,321

Page 244 of 990 ends
Page 568 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 12 / 36
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 691 691 0.04 0.03 0.64 703
T otal — 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 T otal — 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 T otal — 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
T otal — 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
T otal — 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
T otal — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Page 245 of 990 ends
Page 569 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 13 / 36
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 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
T otal — 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
T otal — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 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 — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
T otal — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
T otal — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111

Page 246 of 990 ends
Page 570 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 14 / 36
T otal — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111

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 — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
T otal — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
T otal — 670 670 0.06 < 0.005 — 671
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111
T otal — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111

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
T otal 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

Page 247 of 990 ends
Page 571 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 15 / 36
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 — 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40
T otal 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
T otal 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— — — — — — —
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— — — — — — —

Page 248 of 990 ends
Page 572 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 16 / 36
Landscape Equipment — 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40
T otal 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
T otal 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
T otal 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 T otal 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
T otal 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
T otal 6.86 41.2 48.1 0.02 0.01 — 53.1
Annual — — — — — — —

Page 249 of 990 ends
Page 573 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 17 / 36
Single Family Housing 1.14 6.83 7.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.80 T otal 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
T otal 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
T otal 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
T otal 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
T otal 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
T otal 40.7 0.00 40.7 4.07 0.00 — 142
Annual — — — — — — —

Page 250 of 990 ends
Page 574 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 18 / 36
Single Family Housing 6.74 0.00 6.74 0.67 0.00 — 23.6
T otal 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
T otal — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — — — — — 1.58 1.58
T otal — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Annual — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — — — — — 0.26 0.26
T otal — — — — — 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
T otal — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Single Family Housing — — — — — 1.58 1.58
T otal — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Annual — — — — — — —

Page 251 of 990 ends
Page 575 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 19 / 36
Single Family Housing — — — — — 0.26 0.26
T otal — — — — — 0.26 0.26

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) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment T ype

4.8.1. Unmitigated

Page 252 of 990 ends
Page 576 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 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

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 — — — — — — —

Page 253 of 990 ends
Page 577 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 21 / 36
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) — — — — — — —
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

Page 254 of 990 ends
Page 578 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 22 / 36
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 — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —

Page 255 of 990 ends
Page 579 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 23 / 36
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) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —

Page 256 of 990 ends
Page 580 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —

Page 257 of 990 ends
Page 581 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 25 / 36

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 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 T ype T rips/Weekday T rips/Saturday T rips/Sunday T rips/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 T ype 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

Page 258 of 990 ends
Page 582 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 26 / 36
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth T ype 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

Page 259 of 990 ends
Page 583 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 2,089,231

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 2,089,231

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

Page 260 of 990 ends
Page 584 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 T ype Equipment T ype 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 T ype Equipment T ype 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

Page 261 of 990 ends
Page 585 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 29 / 36

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use T ype Vegetation Soil T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use T ype Vegetation Soil T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

Page 262 of 990 ends
Page 586 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 30 / 36

5.18.1. Biomass Cover T ype

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
T ree T ype Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
T ree T ype 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
T emperature 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

Page 263 of 990 ends
Page 587 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 31 / 36
T emperature 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 T emperature 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 T emperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2

Page 264 of 990 ends
Page 588 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 T ract
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
T oxic Releases 61.3
T raffic 31.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 65.0
Groundwater 97.0

Page 265 of 990 ends
Page 589 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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 T ract
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
T ransportation —
Auto Access 13.06300526
Active commuting 96.25304761

Page 266 of 990 ends
Page 590 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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
T ree 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

Page 267 of 990 ends
Page 591 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified 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
T raffic Density 29.2
T raffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 21.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.1

Page 268 of 990 ends
Page 592 ends

Berkeley HE Single Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 36 / 36

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census T ract
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 60% 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

Page 269 of 990 ends
Page 593 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 1 / 39
Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% 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

Page 270 of 990 ends
Page 594 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 271 of 990 ends
Page 595 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 272 of 990 ends
Page 596 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 273 of 990 ends
Page 597 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 274 of 990 ends
Page 598 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 275 of 990 ends
Page 599 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 7 / 39

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% 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 —

Page 276 of 990 ends
Page 600 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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. 6,787 531,593 538,380 689 21.5 1,064 563,072
Mit. 6,761 531,564 538,326 688 21.5 1,064 562,999
% Reduced < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6,787 503,110 509,897 692 23.5 156 534,338
Mit. 6,761 503,082 509,843 692 23.4 156 534,265
% Reduced < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6,787 482,020 488,807 689 21.5 512 512,941
Mit. 6,761 481,992 488,753 689 21.4 512 512,868
% Reduced < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1,124 79,804 80,928 114 3.55 84.7 84,923
Mit. 1,119 79,799 80,919 114 3.54 84.7 84,911
% Reduced < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

Page 277 of 990 ends
Page 601 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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 — 62,985 62,985 2.26 0.05 — 63,056
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 6,787 531,593 538,380 689 21.5 1,064 563,072
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 — 62,985 62,985 2.26 0.05 — 63,056
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 6,787 503,110 509,897 692 23.5 156 534,338
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 — 62,985 62,985 2.26 0.05 — 63,056
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 6,787 482,020 488,807 689 21.5 512 512,941
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile — 68,881 68,881 3.45 3.50 62.9 70,072

Page 278 of 990 ends
Page 602 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 10 / 39
Area 0.00 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 236
Energy — 10,428 10,428 0.37 0.01 — 10,440
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 79,804 80,928 114 3.55 84.7 84,923

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 — 62,985 62,985 2.26 0.05 — 63,056
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 6,761 531,564 538,326 688 21.5 1,064 562,999
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 — 62,985 62,985 2.26 0.05 — 63,056
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 6,761 503,082 509,843 692 23.4 156 534,265
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile — 416,047 416,047 20.8 21.1 380 423,241

Page 279 of 990 ends
Page 603 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 11 / 39
Area 0.00 1,421 1,421 0.06 0.01 — 1,426
Energy — 62,985 62,985 2.26 0.05 — 63,056
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 6,761 481,992 488,753 689 21.4 512 512,868
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 — 10,428 10,428 0.37 0.01 — 10,440
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 79,799 80,919 114 3.54 84.7 84,911

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

Page 280 of 990 ends
Page 604 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 281 of 990 ends
Page 605 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 13 / 39
Daily , Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 37,434 37,434 0.00 0.00 — 37,434
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 37,434 37,434 0.00 0.00 — 37,434
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 37,434 37,434 0.00 0.00 — 37,434
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 37,434 37,434 0.00 0.00 — 37,434
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 6,198 6,198 0.00 0.00 — 6,198
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 6,198 6,198 0.00 0.00 — 6,198

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 — 37,434 37,434 0.00 0.00 — 37,434
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 37,434 37,434 0.00 0.00 — 37,434
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 37,434 37,434 0.00 0.00 — 37,434
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 37,434 37,434 0.00 0.00 — 37,434
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 6,198 6,198 0.00 0.00 — 6,198
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 6,198 6,198 0.00 0.00 — 6,198

Page 282 of 990 ends
Page 606 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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 — 25,551 25,551 2.26 0.05 — 25,621
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 25,551 25,551 2.26 0.05 — 25,621
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 25,551 25,551 2.26 0.05 — 25,621
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 25,551 25,551 2.26 0.05 — 25,621
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 4,230 4,230 0.37 0.01 — 4,242
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 4,230 4,230 0.37 0.01 — 4,242

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 — 25,551 25,551 2.26 0.05 — 25,621
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 25,551 25,551 2.26 0.05 — 25,621
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 25,551 25,551 2.26 0.05 — 25,621
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 25,551 25,551 2.26 0.05 — 25,621
Annual — — — — — — —

Page 283 of 990 ends
Page 607 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 15 / 39
Apartments Mid Rise — 4,230 4,230 0.37 0.01 — 4,242
Condo/T ownhouse — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T otal — 4,230 4,230 0.37 0.01 — 4,242

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

Page 284 of 990 ends
Page 608 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 285 of 990 ends
Page 609 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 286 of 990 ends
Page 610 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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 — — — — — — —

Page 287 of 990 ends
Page 611 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 288 of 990 ends
Page 612 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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) — — — — — — —

Page 289 of 990 ends
Page 613 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 290 of 990 ends
Page 614 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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) — — — — — — —

Page 291 of 990 ends
Page 615 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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 — — — — — — —

Page 292 of 990 ends
Page 616 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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) — — — — — — —

Page 293 of 990 ends
Page 617 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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 — — — — — — —

Page 294 of 990 ends
Page 618 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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 —

Page 295 of 990 ends
Page 619 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 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

Page 296 of 990 ends
Page 620 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 28 / 39
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

5.10.2. 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)
37248093 12,416,031 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

Page 297 of 990 ends
Page 621 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 29 / 39
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) Apartments Mid Rise 101,211,157 135 0.0000 0.0000 79,724,461 Condo/T ownhouse 0.00 135 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

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) Apartments Mid Rise 101,211,157 135 0.0000 0.0000 79,724,461 Condo/T ownhouse 0.00 135 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 4,012,726 780,308,430
Condo/T ownhouse 55,752,035 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 3,210,181 780,308,430
Condo/T ownhouse 44,601,628 0.00

Page 298 of 990 ends
Page 622 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 30 / 39

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 11,178 —
Condo/T ownhouse 1,177 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 11,178 —
Condo/T ownhouse 1,177 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use T ype Equipment T ype Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Condo/T ownhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/T ownhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated

Page 299 of 990 ends
Page 623 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 31 / 39
Land Use T ype Equipment T ype Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Condo/T ownhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/T ownhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

Page 300 of 990 ends
Page 624 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 32 / 39

5.17. User Defined
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use T ype Vegetation Soil T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use T ype Vegetation Soil T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover T ype

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
T ree T ype Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

Page 301 of 990 ends
Page 625 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 33 / 39
T ree T ype 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
T emperature 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
T emperature 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 T emperature 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

Page 302 of 990 ends
Page 626 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 34 / 39
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 T emperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
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.

Page 303 of 990 ends
Page 627 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 35 / 39
Indicator Result for Project Census T ract
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
T oxic Releases 61.3
T raffic 31.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 65.0
Groundwater 97.0
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

Page 304 of 990 ends
Page 628 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 36 / 39
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 T ract
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
T ransportation —
Auto Access 13.06300526
Active commuting 96.25304761
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
T ree 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 —

Page 305 of 990 ends
Page 629 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 37 / 39
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
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

Page 306 of 990 ends
Page 630 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 38 / 39
English Speaking 71.2
Foreign-born 47.0
Outdoor Workers 90.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 28.0
T raffic Density 29.2
T raffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 21.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census T ract
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.

Page 307 of 990 ends
Page 631 ends

Berkeley HE Multi Fam 60% Electrified Detailed Report, 6/11/2025 39 / 39

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 17,427 multi-family units, 1,570 condo/townhome units and 47,120 new residents. ADUs included as
condo/townhouse for a conservative assumption. Default acreage and building square footage.

Landscape area set to zero, outdoor water consumption estimated at rate of 41,075 gal/unit.

Operations: Hearths No woodstoves or fireplaces
Operations: Energy Use Assume 60% of development will not include natural gas pursuant to BMC Section 12.80 (Natural gas ban). T otals combined and added to Apartments row.

Operations: Water and Waste Water EBMUD Wastewater treatment plant 100 percent aerobic. Water consumption based on v2020 defaults per multifamily unit in lieu of available data in v2022.

Page 308 of 990 ends
Page 632 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 1 / 36
San Pablo Ave SP Added Units 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

Page 309 of 990 ends
Page 633 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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 T ype

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment T ype

Page 310 of 990 ends
Page 634 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 3 / 36

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

Page 311 of 990 ends
Page 635 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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

Page 312 of 990 ends
Page 636 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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 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

Page 313 of 990 ends
Page 637 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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

Page 314 of 990 ends
Page 638 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 7 / 36

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name San Pablo Ave SP Added Units
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
3,250 Dwelling Unit 85.5 3,120,000 0.00 — 8,125 —

Page 315 of 990 ends
Page 639 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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. 1,395 86,922 88,317 119 4.03 176 92,675
Mit. 1,346 86,867 88,212 119 3.92 176 92,534
% Reduced 4% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% — < 0.5%
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1,395 82,222 83,617 120 4.35 26.3 87,934
Mit. 1,346 82,167 83,512 120 4.24 26.3 87,793
% Reduced 4% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5%
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1,395 79,241 80,636 119 4.04 85.2 84,910
Mit. 1,346 79,186 80,531 119 3.93 85.2 84,769
% Reduced 4% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% — < 0.5%
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 231 13,119 13,350 19.8 0.67 14.1 14,058
Mit. 223 13,110 13,333 19.7 0.65 14.1 14,035
% Reduced 4% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% — < 0.5%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

Page 316 of 990 ends
Page 640 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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 — 76,279 76,279 3.32 3.48 153 77,552
Area 0.00 493 493 0.02 < 0.005 — 495
Energy — 9,630 9,630 0.32 0.01 — 9,640
Water 247 520 767 0.85 0.54 — 948
Waste 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
Refrig. — — — — — 22.3 22.3
T otal 1,395 86,922 88,317 119 4.03 176 92,675
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile — 72,072 72,072 3.84 3.80 3.97 73,306
Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Energy — 9,630 9,630 0.32 0.01 — 9,640
Water 247 520 767 0.85 0.54 — 948
Waste 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
Refrig. — — — — — 22.3 22.3
T otal 1,395 82,222 83,617 120 4.35 26.3 87,934
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile — 68,848 68,848 3.45 3.49 62.9 70,038
Area 0.00 243 243 0.01 < 0.005 — 244
Energy — 9,630 9,630 0.32 0.01 — 9,640
Water 247 520 767 0.85 0.54 — 948
Waste 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
Refrig. — — — — — 22.3 22.3
T otal 1,395 79,241 80,636 119 4.04 85.2 84,910
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile — 11,399 11,399 0.57 0.58 10.4 11,596

Page 317 of 990 ends
Page 641 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 10 / 36
Area 0.00 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.4
Energy — 1,594 1,594 0.05 < 0.005 — 1,596
Water 40.8 86.1 127 0.14 0.09 — 157
Waste 190 0.00 190 19.0 0.00 — 665
Refrig. — — — — — 3.70 3.70
T otal 231 13,119 13,350 19.8 0.67 14.1 14,058

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 — 76,279 76,279 3.32 3.48 153 77,552
Area 0.00 493 493 0.02 < 0.005 — 495
Energy — 9,630 9,630 0.32 0.01 — 9,640
Water 197 465 662 0.68 0.43 — 807
Waste 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
Refrig. — — — — — 22.3 22.3
T otal 1,346 86,867 88,212 119 3.92 176 92,534
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile — 72,072 72,072 3.84 3.80 3.97 73,306
Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Energy — 9,630 9,630 0.32 0.01 — 9,640
Water 197 465 662 0.68 0.43 — 807
Waste 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
Refrig. — — — — — 22.3 22.3
T otal 1,346 82,167 83,512 120 4.24 26.3 87,793
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile — 68,848 68,848 3.45 3.49 62.9 70,038

Page 318 of 990 ends
Page 642 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 11 / 36
Area 0.00 243 243 0.01 < 0.005 — 244
Energy — 9,630 9,630 0.32 0.01 — 9,640
Water 197 465 662 0.68 0.43 — 807
Waste 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
Refrig. — — — — — 22.3 22.3
T otal 1,346 79,186 80,531 119 3.93 85.2 84,769
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile — 11,399 11,399 0.57 0.58 10.4 11,596
Area 0.00 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.4
Energy — 1,594 1,594 0.05 < 0.005 — 1,596
Water 32.7 76.9 110 0.11 0.07 — 134
Waste 190 0.00 190 19.0 0.00 — 665
Refrig. — — — — — 3.70 3.70
T otal 223 13,110 13,333 19.7 0.65 14.1 14,035

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 — 76,279 76,279 3.32 3.48 153 77,552 T otal — 76,279 76,279 3.32 3.48 153 77,552
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 72,072 72,072 3.84 3.80 3.97 73,306 T otal — 72,072 72,072 3.84 3.80 3.97 73,306

Page 319 of 990 ends
Page 643 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 12 / 36
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 11,399 11,399 0.57 0.58 10.4 11,596 T otal — 11,399 11,399 0.57 0.58 10.4 11,596

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 — 76,279 76,279 3.32 3.48 153 77,552 T otal — 76,279 76,279 3.32 3.48 153 77,552
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 72,072 72,072 3.84 3.80 3.97 73,306 T otal — 72,072 72,072 3.84 3.80 3.97 73,306
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 11,399 11,399 0.57 0.58 10.4 11,596 T otal — 11,399 11,399 0.57 0.58 10.4 11,596

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) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 5,962 5,962 0.00 0.00 — 5,962
T otal — 5,962 5,962 0.00 0.00 — 5,962
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 5,962 5,962 0.00 0.00 — 5,962
T otal — 5,962 5,962 0.00 0.00 — 5,962

Page 320 of 990 ends
Page 644 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 13 / 36
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 987 987 0.00 0.00 — 987
T otal — 987 987 0.00 0.00 — 987

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 — 5,962 5,962 0.00 0.00 — 5,962
T otal — 5,962 5,962 0.00 0.00 — 5,962
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 5,962 5,962 0.00 0.00 — 5,962
T otal — 5,962 5,962 0.00 0.00 — 5,962
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 987 987 0.00 0.00 — 987
T otal — 987 987 0.00 0.00 — 987

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 — 3,668 3,668 0.32 0.01 — 3,678
T otal — 3,668 3,668 0.32 0.01 — 3,678
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 3,668 3,668 0.32 0.01 — 3,678
T otal — 3,668 3,668 0.32 0.01 — 3,678
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 607 607 0.05 < 0.005 — 609

Page 321 of 990 ends
Page 645 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 14 / 36
T otal — 607 607 0.05 < 0.005 — 609

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 — 3,668 3,668 0.32 0.01 — 3,678
T otal — 3,668 3,668 0.32 0.01 — 3,678
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 3,668 3,668 0.32 0.01 — 3,678
T otal — 3,668 3,668 0.32 0.01 — 3,678
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — 607 607 0.05 < 0.005 — 609
T otal — 607 607 0.05 < 0.005 — 609

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 — 493 493 0.02 < 0.005 — 495
T otal 0.00 493 493 0.02 < 0.005 — 495
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Page 322 of 990 ends
Page 646 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 15 / 36
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 — 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.4
T otal 0.00 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.4

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 — 493 493 0.02 < 0.005 — 495
T otal 0.00 493 493 0.02 < 0.005 — 495
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— — — — — — —

Page 323 of 990 ends
Page 647 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 16 / 36
Landscape Equipment — 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.4
T otal 0.00 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.4

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 247 520 767 0.85 0.54 — 948
T otal 247 520 767 0.85 0.54 — 948
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 247 520 767 0.85 0.54 — 948
T otal 247 520 767 0.85 0.54 — 948
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 40.8 86.1 127 0.14 0.09 — 157
T otal 40.8 86.1 127 0.14 0.09 — 157

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 197 465 662 0.68 0.43 — 807
T otal 197 465 662 0.68 0.43 — 807
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 197 465 662 0.68 0.43 — 807
T otal 197 465 662 0.68 0.43 — 807
Annual — — — — — — —

Page 324 of 990 ends
Page 648 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 17 / 36
Apartments Mid Rise 32.7 76.9 110 0.11 0.07 — 134
T otal 32.7 76.9 110 0.11 0.07 — 134

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) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
T otal 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
T otal 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 190 0.00 190 19.0 0.00 — 665
T otal 190 0.00 190 19.0 0.00 — 665

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 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
T otal 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
T otal 1,148 0.00 1,148 115 0.00 — 4,017
Annual — — — — — — —

Page 325 of 990 ends
Page 649 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 18 / 36
Apartments Mid Rise 190 0.00 190 19.0 0.00 — 665
T otal 190 0.00 190 19.0 0.00 — 665

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 — — — — — 22.3 22.3
T otal — — — — — 22.3 22.3
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — 22.3 22.3
T otal — — — — — 22.3 22.3
Annual — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — 3.70 3.70
T otal — — — — — 3.70 3.70

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 — — — — — 22.3 22.3
T otal — — — — — 22.3 22.3
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — 22.3 22.3
T otal — — — — — 22.3 22.3
Annual — — — — — — —

Page 326 of 990 ends
Page 650 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 19 / 36
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — 3.70 3.70
T otal — — — — — 3.70 3.70

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) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment T ype

4.8.1. Unmitigated

Page 327 of 990 ends
Page 651 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 20 / 36
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

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 — — — — — — —

Page 328 of 990 ends
Page 652 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 21 / 36
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) — — — — — — —
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

Page 329 of 990 ends
Page 653 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 22 / 36
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 — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —

Page 330 of 990 ends
Page 654 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 23 / 36
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) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Daily , Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
T otal — — — — — — —

Page 331 of 990 ends
Page 655 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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 — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —

Page 332 of 990 ends
Page 656 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 25 / 36

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
17,680 15,957 13,293 6,134,607 103,429 93,352 77,762 35,887,644

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
17,680 15,957 13,293 6,134,607 103,429 93,352 77,762 35,887,644

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth T ype Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
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

Page 333 of 990 ends
Page 657 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 26 / 36
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
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)
6318000 2,106,000 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

Page 334 of 990 ends
Page 658 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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) Apartments Mid Rise 16,118,850 135 0.0000 0.0000 11,445,292

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) Apartments Mid Rise 16,118,850 135 0.0000 0.0000 11,445,292

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 115,410,263 133,494,889

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 92,328,210 133,494,889

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

Page 335 of 990 ends
Page 659 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 28 / 36

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 2,131 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 2,131 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use T ype Equipment T ype Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use T ype Equipment T ype Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

Page 336 of 990 ends
Page 660 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 29 / 36

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment T ype Fuel T ype

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use T ype Vegetation Soil T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use T ype Vegetation Soil T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

Page 337 of 990 ends
Page 661 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 30 / 36

5.18.1. Biomass Cover T ype

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover T ype Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
T ree T ype Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
T ree T ype 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
T emperature 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

Page 338 of 990 ends
Page 662 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 31 / 36
T emperature 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 T emperature 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 T emperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2

Page 339 of 990 ends
Page 663 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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 T ract
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
T oxic Releases 61.3
T raffic 31.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 65.0
Groundwater 97.0

Page 340 of 990 ends
Page 664 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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 T ract
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
T ransportation —
Auto Access 13.06300526
Active commuting 96.25304761

Page 341 of 990 ends
Page 665 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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
T ree 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

Page 342 of 990 ends
Page 666 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 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
T raffic Density 29.2
T raffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 21.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.1

Page 343 of 990 ends
Page 667 ends

San Pablo Ave SP Added Units Detailed Report, 6/12/2025 36 / 36

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census T ract
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 SP A SP growth assumption of 3,250 multi-family units and 8,125 new residents.

Default acreage and building square footage. Landscape area set to zero and accounted for in Outdoor Water Use input.

Operations: Hearths No woodstoves or fireplaces
Operations: Energy Use Assume 60% of development will not include natural gas pursuant to BMC Section 12.80 (Natural gas ban).

Operations: Water and Waste Water EBMUD Wastewater treatment plant 100 percent aerobic. Outdoor water use estimated using default rate from v2022 - 41,075 gals/unit/year for multifamily units.

Page 344 of 990 ends
Page 668 ends

APPENDIX C: STATE DENSITY BONUS ANALYSIS

Page 345 of 990 ends
Page 669 ends

Planning and Development Department
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/

From: Justin Horner, Principal Planner
Date: September 1, 2026
Subject: Analysis of State Density Bonus Projects in Berkeley

INTRODUCTION
The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report (Addendum) incorporates development projections associated with the proposed rezoning San Pablo Avenue. These projections account for additional residential capacity that could be realized with the use of the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL).

The assumptions underlying this analysis anticipate that most projects would utilize the SDBL to construct buildings in the 6-8 story range. This memorandum reviews recent SDBL projects in Berkeley evaluate this assumption, suggests key construction cost factors associated with mid-rise and taller buildings, and summarizes a recent study on the marginal costs of increased building height.

DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS IN BERKELEY
Pursuant to State law, the City prepares an Annual Progress Report (APR) each year on implementation of its General Plan, which is submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Each APR includes a list of all SDBL projects that received an entitlement, building permit, or Certificate of Occupancy during the prior year.

Attachment 1 compiles all SDBL projects reported in the City’s APRs from 2020 to 2025. For each project, it identifies the address, total number of units, building height, zoning district, and the applicable maximum height limit for that district. Attachment 1 shows:
• Of the 82 SDB projects captured in the 2020-2025 APRs, 91% of them (75 of 82) were 8 stories or fewer.

• Because the Addendum assumes a proposed maximum base height standard of 7 stories for San Pablo Avenue, Attachment 1 indicates in bold those SDB projects that are located on sites that allow 7 stories in their zoning district.

Of the 29 SDB projects on sites that allow 7 stories for the base project, 80% (or 22 out of 26) were 8 stories or fewer.

Page 346 of 990 ends
Page 670 ends
Page 2 ends

• Of the 29 SDB projects on sites that allow 7 stories for the base project, three of them are located in the downtown core and were approved under special Zoning Ordinance provisions that permit an increased height allowance that applies only to a total of five buildings in the downtown core.

The proposed rezoning does not apply to the downtown and does not include provisions that would include an increased height allowance. Excluding those three special downtown projects leaves a total of 23 SDB projects on sites that allow 7 stories for the base project, 22 of which, or 96%, of which are 8 stories or fewer.

FACTORS IN CONSTRUCTION

Several factors help explain why many projects tend to top out at approximately 8 stories, most of which relate to construction requirements and associated costs.

• Beyond roughly 6-8 stories, projects typically can no longer rely on wood-frame construction (like Type V construction) and instead must transition to steel or reinforced concrete systems (Type I construction) which increase per square foot material costs. On average, Type 1 constructions costs approximately $65 more per square foot than Type V construction.1
• Under the California Health and Safety Code and the California Building Code (CBC), a high-rise structure is defined as a building with an occupied floor located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access (Health & Safety Code §13210; CBC §202). Buildings meeting this definition are subject to the additional provisions of CBC §403 (High-Rise Buildings), which includes additional life-safety requirements that are not required for non-high-rise construction.

Together, these factors create meaningful cost and design constraints that can limit the feasibility of construction above the mid-rise range.

The chart on the following page, excerpted from Hannah Hoyt’s 2020 paper More for Less? An Inquiry into Design and Construction Strategies for Addressing Multifamily Housing Costs,2 summarizes findings from interviews with more than 30 building industry professionals and illustrates the increase in per square foot construction costs for projects exceeding approximately 6 to 7 stories

1 Terner Center for Housing Innovation, The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California, March 2020. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/2020/08/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf 2 Hannah Hoyt, More for Less? An Inquiry into Design and Construction Strategies for Addressing Multifamily Housing Costs, Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2020. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/media/imp/harvard_jchs_gramlich_design_and_constructi on_strategies_multifamily_hoyt_2020_3.pdf

Page 347 of 990 ends
Page 671 ends
Page 3 ends

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

These observations are consistent with findings by Michael Eriksen and Anthony Orlando in their 2021 paper Returns to Scale in Residential Construction: The Marginal Impact of Building Height.3 Based on a survey of construction costs across the 50 largest U.S. cities, the authors estimate the marginal costs of developing multifamily housing at increasing heights.

Panel A of their study illustrates the non-linear relationship between building height and per-square-foot construction costs, while Panel B presents the marginal cost of adding each additional story. The analysis identifies a notable increase in marginal costs beginning at seven stories, with continued cost escalation for additional height.

3 Michael Eriksen and Anthony Orlando in their 2021 paper Returns to Scale in Residential Construction:

The Marginal Impact of Building Height. Real Estate Economics v. 50(2), March 2021.

Page 348 of 990 ends
Page 672 ends
Page 4 ends

These findings align with the projects summarized in Attachment 1 and reinforce the construction-related constraints described above.

CONCLUSION

The Addendum’s assumption that projects developed under the proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would generally top out at eight stories—even when utilizing the State Density Bonus Law —is supported by both recent development patterns in Berkeley and broader empirical research. The City’s record of SDBL projects over the past five years demonstrates a consistent tendency toward mid-rise construction, while cost analyses indicate that buildings exceeding eight stories are often not economically feasible in districts with a seven-story base height limit. Together, this evidence supports the reasonableness of the Addendum’s development assumptions.

Page 349 of 990 ends
Page 673 ends
Page 5 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
State Density Bonus Law Projects in the City of Berkeley

Units Height Zoning District Zoning Height Max
2025 APR (17 projects)
1701 San Pablo 110 6 stories C-W 40 ft
1740 San Pablo 54 6 stories C-W 40 ft
1752 Shattuck 68 7 stories C-C 40 ft
2300 Ellsworth 69 7 stories R-SMU 85 ft
2902 Adeline Street 50 6 stories C-AC 6-8 stories
2650 Telegraph 72 7 stories C-C 40 ft
2000 Dwight 45 5 stories R-4 35 ft
2001 Ashby Ave 86 8 stories C-AC 6-8 stories
2440 Shattuck 40 8 stories C-DMU Corridor 60 ft max (75 ft with UP) 2480 Bancroft 28 8 stories C-T 85 ft
2555 College 11 4 stories R-3 35 ft
2680 Bancroft 79 8 stories R-SMU 85 ft
1975 Shattuck 599
28 stories*
C-DMU Outer
Core
60 ft max (75 ft with
UP)
2274 Shattuck 227 17 stories C-DMU Corridor
60 ft max (75 ft with
UP)
2442 Haste 38 8 stories C-T 85 ft
2138 Kittredge St 66 8 stories
C-DMU Outer
Core 60 ft max (75 ft with UP)
2100 Milvia 201 8 stories C-DMU Buffer 50 ft max (60 ft with UP) Base zoning that allows 7 stories
Increased Height Allowance Proj.

Page 350 of 990 ends
Page 674 ends
Page 6 ends

2024 APR (21 projects)
1598 University 207 8 stories C-U 30 ft
1750 Sacramento 739 8 stories R-BMU 8 stories
1752 Shattuck Ave 74 7 stories C-C 40 ft
2000 University 81 8 stories C-DMU Core
60 ft max (75 ft with
UP)
2037 Durant Ave 74 8 stories C-DMU Buffer 50 ft max (60 ft with UP) 2099 Martin Luther King Jr Way 72 7 stories C-DMU Buffer 50 ft max (60 ft with UP) 2115 Kittredge St 214 15 stories C-DMU Core
60 ft max (75 ft with
UP)
2128 Oxford St 485
26 stories* C-DMU Core
60 ft max (75 ft with
UP)
2136 San Pablo Ave 126 6 stories C-W 40 ft
2137 Dwight Way 58 6 stories C-SA 36 ft
2300 Ellsworth St 69 7 stories R-SMU 85 ft
2427 San Pablo Ave 78 5 stories C-W 40 ft
2462 Bancroft Way 66 8 stories C-T 85 ft max
2527 San Pablo Ave 63 6 stories C-W 40 ft
2530 Bancroft Ave 110 12 stories C-T 85 ft max
2538 Durant Ave 83 8 stories C-T 85 ft max
2555 College Ave 11 4 stories R-3 35 ft
2587 Telegraph Avenue 52 8 stories C-T 85 ft max
2701 Shattuck Ave 57 5 stories C-AC 6-8 stories
3030 Telegraph Ave 144 5 stories C-C 40 ft
805 Jones St 6 2 stories MU-R 35 ft
Base zoning that allows 7 stories
Increased Height Allowance Proj.

Page 351 of 990 ends
Page 675 ends
Page 7 ends

2023 APR ( 21 projects)
1598 University Ave 207 8 stories C-U 30 ft
1717 University Ave 28 5 stories C-U 30 ft
1752 Shattuck Ave 68 7 stories C-C 40 ft
1773 Oxford St 24 5 stories R-4 35 ft
1820 San Pablo Ave 44 5 stories C-W 40 ft
2023 Shattuck Ave 48 7 stories C-DMU Core
60 ft max (75 ft with
UP)
2028 Bancroft Way 37 7 stories C-DMU Buffer 50 ft max (60 ft with UP) 2065 Kittredge St 187 8 stories C-DMU Core
60 ft max (75 ft with
UP)
2067 University Ave 50 7 stories
C-DMU Outer
Core
60 ft max (75 ft with
UP)
2147 San Pablo Ave 128 6 stories C-W 40 ft
2190 Shattuck Ave 326
25 stories* C-DMU Core
60 ft max (75 ft with
UP)
2650 Telegraph Ave 45 5 stories C-C 40 ft
2712 Telegraph Ave 40 6 stories C-C 40 ft
2800 Telegraph Ave 16 6 stories C-C 40 ft
3000 San Pablo Ave 16 6 stories C-W 40 ft
3030 Telegraph Ave 144 5 stories C-C 40 ft
3031 Telegraph Ave 127 6 stories C-C 40 ft
3000 Shattuck Ave 166 10 stories C-SA 36 ft
2590 Bancroft Way 87 8 stories C-T 85 ft
2532 Shattuck Ave 204 8 stories C-AC 6-8 stories
2440 Shattuck Ave 40 8 stories C-DMU Corridor 60 ft max (75 ft with UP) Base zoning that allows 7 stories
Increased Height Allowance Proj.

Page 352 of 990 ends
Page 676 ends
Page 8 ends

2022 APR (10 projects)
1201 San Pablo Ave 66 6 stories C-W 40 ft
1601 Oxford 34 5 stories R-3 35 ft
1950 Addison 107 7 stories C-DMU Buffer 50 ft max (60 ft with UP) 2000 Dwight St 113 6 stories R-4 35 ft
2000 University Ave 82 8 stories C-DMU Buffer 50 ft max (60 ft with UP) 2012 Berkeley Way 142 5 stories C-DMU Buffer 50 ft max (60 ft with UP) 2018 Blake 12 6 stories R-4 35 ft
2435 Haste St 37 8 stories R-SMU 85 ft
2590 Bancroft 87 8 stories C-T 85 ft
2352 Shattuck Ave 204 8 stories C-DMU Buffer 50 ft max (60 ft with UP) Base zoning that allows 7 stories

2021 APR(6 projects)
2597 Telegraph Ave 10 4 stories C-T 85 ft
3020 San Pablo Ave 29 5 stories C-W 40 ft
2023 Shattuck Ave 48 8 stories C-DMU Core
60 ft max (75 ft with
UP)
3000 San Pablo Ave 78 6 stories C-W 40 ft
3031 Telegraph Ave 110 6 stories C-C 40 ft
2015 Blake St 155 7 stories R-4 35 ft
Base zoning that allows 7 stories

2020 APR (7 projects)
1367 University 39 4 stories C-U 30 ft
1200 San Pablo Ave 104 6 stories C-W 40 ft
2720 San Pablo Ave 25 6 stories C-W 40 ft
2000 Dwight 113 6 stories R-4 35 ft
1500 San Pablo Ave 170 5 stories C-W 40 ft
2352 Shattuck Ave 204 8 stories C-AC 6-8 stories
2590 Bancroft 87 8 stories C-T 85 ft
Base zoning that allows 7 stories

Page 353 of 990 ends
Page 677 ends

Final Draft – September 01, 2026
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT BPage 354 of 990

Page 678 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 2
Plan Acknowledgments
This Specific Plan was generously funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) through a Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning Grant.

City of Berkeley
City Council Members
Adena Ishii, Mayor
Rashi Kesarwani, District 1
Terry Taplin, District 2
Ben Bartlett, District 3
Igor Tregub, District 4
Shoshana O’Keefe, District 5
Brent Blackaby, District 6
Cecilia Lunaparra, District 7
Mark Humbert, District 8
Planning Commission
Emily Marthinsen, Chair
Savlan Hauser, Vice Chair
Alfred Twu
Angela Wang
Blaine Merker
Charles Khan
Christina Oatfield
Darrell Owens
Jeff Vincent
Barnali Ghosh (former)
Elisa Mikiten (former)
John E. “Chip” Moore III (former)
Project Team
Anne Hersch, Land Use Planning Manager
Ashley James, Senior Planner (former)
Jordan Klein, Planning and Development Director
Justin Horner, Principal Planner
Robert Rivera, Senior Planner (former)
Technical Advisory Group
City Manager’s Office, Economic Development
Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department
Public Works Department, Transportation Division
Alameda County Transportation Commission
ACT Transit
City of Albany
City of Emeryville
City of Oakland
Consulting Team
Team Leaders
Community Design + Architecture (CD+A), Team Lead and
Urban Design
Urban Planning Partners (UPP), Co-Team Lead, Planning
Policy, and Environmental Review
Collaborators
Aaron Welch Planning (AWP), Land Use Planning and
Development Standards
Diablo Engineering Group, Utilities Policy
Fehr & Peers, Transportation Planning
InterEthnica, Community Engagement
Street Level Advisors, Housing and Economic
Development Policy
Special Thanks
Marcel Pardo Ariza, Artist-in-Residence

Page 355 of 990 ends
Page 679 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 3
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 9 Specific Plan Purpose .............................................................................................................. 10 Specific Plan Area ................................................................................................................... 11 Location .................................................................................................................................... 11 Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 11 Specific Plan Area ..................................................................................................................... 12 Significance of the San Pablo Avenue Corridor .......................................................................... 13 Historical Context ..................................................................................................................... 14 Community Demographics ........................................................................................................ 15 Economic Vitality Conditions ..................................................................................................... 16 Planning Context ..................................................................................................................... 17 Community Engagement and Specific Plan Development Process .............................................. 19 Engagement Events and Methods ............................................................................................... 19 Marcel Pardo Ariza: Municipal Artist-in-Residence ...................................................................... 20 Specific Plan Organization ....................................................................................................... 21 How to use this Document ......................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 2 Vision and Guiding Principles .......................................................................... 23 Chapter 3 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 26 Existing Local and State Land Use Policies and Standards .......................................................... 28 Land Use Plan ......................................................................................................................... 28 Existing Land Use and Zoning ..................................................................................................... 28 Land Use and Zoning Policies and Standards ............................................................................. 32 LU-P.1 Establish the Commercial San Pablo (C-SP) District ................................................................ . 32 LU-P.2 Focus Commercial Uses within Designated Nodes ................................................................... 33 LU-P.3 Boundary Adjustments and Re-zonings .................................................................................... 34 LU-P.4 Amend the General Plan and Map ............................................................................................ 34 LU-P.5 Facilitate Housing on MU-LI Parcels ........................................................................................ 36 LU-P.6 Planning and Commercial Use Permit Streamlining .................................................................. 36 LU-P.7 Public Open Space Enhancements .......................................................................................... 36 LU-S.1 Sidewalk Expansion Incentive ............................................................................................ 36 LU-S.2 Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Open Space within Designated Nodes Incentive .......... 37 LU-S.3 Side-Street Plaza Incentive ................................................................................................ 37 LU-S.4 Mid-Block Passage Incentive .............................................................................................. 37 LU-S.5 Development Standards .................................................................................................... 37 LU-S.6 Design Standards .............................................................................................................. 37 LU-S.7 Streetscape Standards ...................................................................................................... 38

Page 356 of 990 ends
Page 680 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 4
LU-P.8 Expand Allowed Primary and Temporary Uses .......................................................................... 38 LU-P.9 Establish Ground Floor Form Types to Promote Pedestrian- Scaled and Flexible Ground Floors ... 40 San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program .......................................................................................... 41 LU-P.10 Establish a Pilot San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program ...................................................... 41 Art and Culture .................................................................................................................................. 42 LU-P.11 Artists Housing and Cultural Districts ...................................................................................... 42 Opportunity Sites and Potential Buildout................................................................................... 42 Chapter 4 Economic Development .................................................................................... 45 Interviews with Business Owners ............................................................................................. 48 Economic Development Policies and Programs ......................................................................... 50 Small Business Support ............................................................................................................. 50 ED-P.1 Outdoor Business Activation Toolkit ........................................................................................ 50 EP-P.2 Support Flexible Commercial Spaces ...................................................................................... 51 ED-P.3 Establish Public-Private Partnerships to Activate the Specific Plan Area .................................... 51 Business Organizations ............................................................................................................. 53 ED-P.4 Support and Expand Existing Business Clusters ....................................................................... 53 Business Improvement and Community Benefit District(s) .......................................................... 55 ED-P.5 Study Feasibility of Forming a Business Improvement District (BID) or Community Benefit District (CBD) 55
ED-P.6 Economic Development Technical Assistance ......................................................................... 56 Public Investment ..................................................................................................................... 57 ED-P.7 Establish a Process to Prioritize Public Investment in Designated Nodes ................................... 57 Supporting Policies and Programs ............................................................................................ 57 Chapter 5 Streets – Transportation and Public Realm ................................................ 58 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 60 Public Realm ............................................................................................................................. 60 Transportation .......................................................................................................................... 61 Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 62 Transportation Policies, Standards and Projects........................................................................ 63 Existing Policies and Standards .................................................................................................. 63 Existing Transportation Projects ................................................................................................. 67 Transportation Policies and Standards ....................................................................................... 68 Multimodal Mobility and Access ......................................................................................................... 68 T-P.1 Improve Mobility, Access, and Safety for All People .................................................................. 68 T-P.2 Future Transportation Study Needs for San Pablo Avenue ......................................................... 68 T-P.3 Maintain and Improve Bus Service in Collaboration with Alameda CTC and AC Transit ............... 69 T-P.4 Implement Signal Timing and Transit Signal Priority (TSP) .......................................................... 69 T-P.5 Create an Active Parking and Loading Management Program for the Specific Plan Area .............. 70

Page 357 of 990 ends
Page 681 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 5
T-P.6 Implement Mobility Hub Features in the University Avenue Node .............................................. 70 T-P.7 Evaluate Other Locations for Some Mobility Hub Features ........................................................ 70 Multimodal Safety .............................................................................................................................. 71 T-P.8 Lower Speed Limit on San Pablo Avenue .................................................................................. 71 T-P.9 Pedestrian Crossing Frequency ............................................................................................... 72 T-P.10 Intersection Improvements ..................................................................................................... 72 T-P.11 Pedestrian Crossing Design .................................................................................................... 73 T-P.12 Minor Side-Street Intersection Improvements .......................................................................... 75 T-P.13 Make Safety Improvements at Driveways ................................................................................. 75 T-P.14 Prioritizing Multimodal Safety Improvements ........................................................................... 75 Improve Connections Outside of the Specific Plan Area ....................................................................... 76 T-P.15 Transit Improvements ............................................................................................................. 79 T-P.16 Bicycle Improvements ............................................................................................................ 79 T-P.17 Pedestrian Improvements ....................................................................................................... 80 T-P.18 Prioritize Connections with Surrounding Neighborhoods and Districts ....................................... 80 T-P.19 Monitor Changing Multimodal Needs and Conditions ............................................................... 81 Public Realm Policies, Standards, and Projects ......................................................................... 82 Sidewalk Space ......................................................................................................................... 82 PR-P.1 Sidewalk Zones ...................................................................................................................... 83 PR-S.1 Sidewalk Zone Standards ................................................................................................... 83 PR-P.2 Sidewalk Incentive .................................................................................................................. 86 PR-S.2 Reestablish Sidewalk Width ............................................................................................... 86 Streetscape .............................................................................................................................. 87 Lighting .............................................................................................................................................. 87 PR-P.3 Improve Street Lighting for the Safety and Comfort of All Users ................................................. 87 Landscaping ...................................................................................................................................... 89 PR-P.4 Enhance Street Tree Health and Expand Tree Canopy ............................................................... 89 PR-S.3 San Pablo Avenue Tree Standards ...................................................................................... 90 PR-S.4 University Avenue Tree Standards ...................................................................................... 91 PR-S.5 Other Side-Street Trees...................................................................................................... 91 PR-P.5 Enhance and Expand Other Landscaping ................................................................................. 92 PR-S.6 Landscaping in Tree Wells and Planters .............................................................................. 93 PR-P.6 Long-term Landscaped Median Design .................................................................................... 93 PR-P.7 Near-term Opportunities for Re-landscaping Medians .............................................................. 93 PR-P.8 Green Infrastructure in Public Projects .................................................................................... 94 PR-P.9 Green Infrastructure in Private Development ............................................................................ 94 Street Furniture .................................................................................................................................. 95 PR-S.7 Public Seating ................................................................................................................... 95 PR-S.8 Trash and Recycling Receptacles ....................................................................................... 96

Page 358 of 990 ends
Page 682 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 6
PR-S.9 Bicycle Racks .................................................................................................................... 96 PR-S.10 Raised Planters ................................................................................................................. 97 PR-P.10 Continue to Improve Bus Stops ............................................................................................... 97 PR-P.11 Other Street Furnishings ......................................................................................................... 98 Wayfinding, Placemaking and Public Art ............................................................................................. 99 PR-P.12 Facilitate Wayfinding and Placemaking Programs .................................................................... 99 PR-P.13 Facilitate Installation of Public Art that Benefits the Public Realm ............................................ 100 Universal Design .............................................................................................................................. 101 PR-P.14 Design for People of All Ages and Abilities ............................................................................... 101 Public Realm Expansion and Improvements ............................................................................. 102 PR-P.15 Create Side-Street Plazas ...................................................................................................... 104 PR-P.16 Support Use and Creation of Parklets ..................................................................................... 106 PR-P.17 Design and Use of Curb Extensions ........................................................................................ 106 PR-P.18 Commercial and Other Private Use of Sidewalks and the Public Realm ..................................... 107 PR-P.19 Purchase Underutilized Small Properties for Public Open Space .............................................. 108 PR-P.20 Privately Owned Public Open Spaces ..................................................................................... 109 Utilities and Fire Services ....................................................................................................... 110 Chapter 6 Administration and Implementation ............................................................. 113 Specific Plan Administration .................................................................................................. 114 Specific Plan Adoption ............................................................................................................. 114 Environmental (CEQA) Review .................................................................................................. 114 Administering the Specific Plan ................................................................................................ 115 Development Review and Project Approvals ............................................................................. 115 Implementation .................................................................................................................... 116 Monitoring and Funding ........................................................................................................... 116 Table 6.1 Potential Funding Strategies and Sources ........................................................................... 118 Implementation Actions ........................................................................................................ 119 Table 6.2 Plan Administration Implementation Actions ...................................................................... 120 Table 6.3 Land Use Implementation Actions ...................................................................................... 121 Table 6.4 Economic Development Implementation Actions ................................................................ 125 Table 6.5 Street Implementation Actions ........................................................................................... 128

Page 359 of 990 ends
Page 683 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 7
Figures

Figure 1.1 San Pablo Avenue in Berkeley and adjacent cities ................................................................................. 11 Figure 1.2 Map of Study Area in relation to the City of Berkeley .............................................................................. 11 Figure 1.3 Specific Plan Area ............................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 1.4 The Key System and Berkeley sign at San Pablo Avenue and University Avenue, ca. 1925. ........................ 13 Figure 1.5 Historical Redlined Areas and Equity Priority Communities Map ............................................................ 14 Figure 1.6 Study Area Demographic Change and Comparisons .............................................................................. 15 Figure 1.7 Vacant Storefront along San Pablo Avenue. .......................................................................................... 16 Figure 1.8 Key California Laws that Support Housing ............................................................................................. 18 Figure 1.9 Community Engagement Timeline ........................................................................................................ 19 Figure 1.10 Images of Marcel’s work for the Roadwork Exhibition ........................................................................... 20 Figure 3.1. Distribution of Existing Housing Units in the Plan Area by Type. ............................................................. 29 Figure 3.2. Existing Berkeley General Plan Land Use Designations ......................................................................... 30 Figure 3.3. Existing Zoning Map ............................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 3.4. Proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Designated Nodes ............................................................... 33 Figure 3.5. Existing and Proposed Zoning Map with Designated Nodes in the Specific Plan Area .............................. 35 Figure 3.6. Examples of Adaptive Reuse of Parking Lots......................................................................................... 39 Figure 3.7. Storefront Frontage Design ................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 3.8. Example of Active Frontage Design ...................................................................................................... 40 Figure 3.9. Elevated Individual Residential Entries ................................................................................................ 40 Figure 3.10. Street Facing Frontage of Live/Work Unit ............................................................................................ 40 Figure 3.11 Wall Mural ........................................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 4.1. Locally-Owned Businesses on San Pablo Avenue. ................................................................................ 46 Figure 4.2. Shirley Everett-Dicko and her family at Everett & Jones ......................................................................... 48 Figure 4.3. Jaime Alejo and his brother at Mi Ranchito Bay Side Market................................................................... 49 Figure 4.4. Vik’s Chaat Parking Lot ....................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 4.5. Hybrid Makerspace and Coworking Space in West Berkeley .................................................................. 51 Figure 4.6. Example of a Co-Working Space for Personal Services ......................................................................... 52 Figure 4.7. Berkeley International Marketplace Participating Businesses ................................................................ 53 Figure 5.1 Section Graphic of the Typical Right-of-Way Configuration at San Pablo Avenue ..................................... 60 Figure 5.2 Sidewalk with Bus Stop and Café Seating .............................................................................................. 61 Figure 5.3 Daytime Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 5.4 Sidewalk with Storefront ...................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 5.5 Alameda CTC San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Overview Map ..................................................... 67 Figure 5.6 Dwight and San Pablo Avenue Intersection ........................................................................................... 71 Figure5.7 Locations with Need for Intersection Improvements .............................................................................. 74 Figure 5.8 Before and After Hardened Centerline Improvement ............................................................................. 75 Figure 5.9 Connections Map: Existing and Planned Projects .................................................................................. 77 Figure 5.10 Existing Street Network Map ............................................................................................................... 78 Figure 5.11 Sidewalks on San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley ........................................................................................... 82 Figure 5.12 Example of the Sidewalk Zones .......................................................................................................... 83 Figure 5.13 Sidewalk Zones Condition at Existing Buildings ................................................................................... 85 Figure 5.14 Sidewalk Zones Condition at New Developments ................................................................................ 85 Figure 5.15 Examples of Existing Mixed-Use Residential Developments with Sidewalk Setbacks ............................. 86 Figure 5.16 Pedestrian Light ................................................................................................................................ 87 Figure 5.17 Example of Pedestrian Scale Lighting .................................................................................................. 87 Figure 5.18 Examples of Tree Canopy along San Pablo Avenue .............................................................................. 89 Figure 5.19 Flexible Porous Pavement .................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 5.20 Trees along Sidewalk ......................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 5.21 Tree on San Pablo Avenue .................................................................................................................. 91 Figure 5.22 Additional Landscape in Large Tree Well ............................................................................................. 92 Figure 5.23 Median Planting................................................................................................................................ . 93 Figure 5.24 Seating Options ................................................................................................................................ . 95

Page 360 of 990 ends
Page 684 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 8
Figure 5.25 Trash Receptacle............................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 5.26 Bicycle Rack ..................................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 5.27 Planter Pots ...................................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 5.28 Bus Stop at the San Pablo Avenue and Dwight Way Intersection ........................................................... 97 Figure 5.29 Examples of Visible Art in the Public Realm ......................................................................................... 99 Figure 5.30 Public Art Installations ...................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 5.31 SF Bay Brazilian Day & Lavagem Festival in 2023 ................................................................................102 Figure 5.32 Examples of Adaptive Reuse of Parking Lots .......................................................................................103 Figure 5.33 Map of Potential Side-Street Plaza Locations ..................................................................................... 104 Figure 5.34 Sunset Triangle Quick-Build Plaza ..................................................................................................... 105 Figure 5.35 Street Closed to Vehicles and Converted into a Plaza ......................................................................... 105 Figure 5.36 Curb Extensions with Seating and Planters ........................................................................................ 107 Figure 5.37 Example of a Food Truck Using a Parking Lot ...................................................................................... 108 Figure 5.38 People using Privately Owned Public Open Spaces ............................................................................ 109

Tables
Table 3.2 Estimated Maximum Buildout 43
Table 5.1 Sidewalk Zone Width Requirements 84
Table 5.2 Recommended Light Levels 88
Table 6.1 Potential Funding Strategies and Sources 118
Table 6.2 Plan Administration Implementation Actions 120 Table 6.3 Land Use Implementation Actions 121
Table 6.4 Economic Development Implementation Actions 125 Table 6.5 Street Implementation Actions 128

Page 361 of 990 ends
Page 685 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 9

Chapter 1 Introduction

San Pablo Avenue is a corridor in transition, shaped by growing demand for housing and fluctuating levels of commercial activity as new businesses open and others close. Existing zoning and State housing laws support additional housing development, but there is no cohesive vision to shape future growth toward a mixed -use district with stronger economic and social vitality.

In 2023, the City of Berkeley launched the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan process to create a framework for equitable and sustainable development, safer streets, better access to the surrounding community, and a more vibrant economy and public realm. Building on City Council direction from 2015, the Specific Plan planning process prioritized inclusive engagement, with targeted outreach to those who live and work in and around the Specific Plan Area and multiple opportunities for the public to participate and shape the Specific Plan.

Chapter 1
Introduction
- Final Draft -

Page 362 of 990 ends
Page 686 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 10
Specific Plan Purpose
The Specific Plan responds to the question: “What will the future of San Pablo Avenue look like?” Its purpose is to establish community-based, context-sensitive regulations and policies that articulate a shared vision for a mixed-use district along San Pablo Avenue. Through the planning
process, the City, in collaboration with the consultant team and the community, identified improvements and innovative programs that expand opportunities for living, working, shopping, and community life along San Pablo Avenue.

In February 2021, the City of Berkeley received a Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning Grant from the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to create the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan.

This Specific Plan establishes a comprehensive framework of land use, public space, transportation, and economic development policies and strategies, including revised
standards for allowed uses in existing and new buildings, updated development standards, and design standards for new development. It also outlines programs and policies to support diverse housing options, strengthen new and
existing businesses, enhance public amenities, and improve connections between the Specific Plan Area and
surrounding neighborhoods and destinations.

Mutual knowledge exchange
The Specific Plan planning process facilitated
meaningful knowledge exchange between the
community and the Specific Plan team:
 Stakeholders gained an understanding of how
recent changes in citywide policies and State
housing legislation have affected the housing
development approvals process. The Specific
Plan’s public engagement focused on where
the community’s input can be meaningful in
the context of streamlined project approvals.
 Stakeholders identified current community
assets and expressed their vision for
enhancing them, as well as their aspirations
for other positive changes along San Pablo
Avenue.
 Stakeholder input provided insight into the
unique aspects of the community and their
ideas for the future. This informed Specific
Plan policies and standards, the land use
map, implementation, strategies, and many
other aspects of the Specific Plan.

Desired outcomes of the planning process
The San Pablo Specific Plan:
 Identifies a community vision and provides a plan for achieving the vision.  Includes a framework for transforming San Pablo Avenue into a multimodal street that functions well for all users, not just as a thoroughfare, but as a mixed -use place that provides a multitude of opportunities for living, working and taking part in community life.
 Explains, updates and creates new local planning policies, development standards and practices, and highlights their interrelationship, relevancy, and adherence with State, regional, and citywide planning policies and processes.  Includes implementation strategies with clear actions and responsibilities.  Prioritizes equity, promotes inclusivity, and strives to eliminate disparities through the Specific Plan’s policies, programs, and implementation strategies.

Page 363 of 990 ends
Page 687 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 11
Specific Plan Area
Location
San Pablo Avenue is one of the primary multi-
jurisdictional transportation corridors in northern
Alameda County and west Contra Costa County,
extending as a major street from the Carquinez Bridge to Downtown Oakland, through the cities of Hercules,
Pinole, San Pablo, Richmond, El Cerrito, Albany,
Berkeley, Emeryville and Oakland. The Specific Plan
Boundary (Specific Plan Area) encompasses the 2.35-
mile corridor along San Pablo Avenue, from the
Berkeley/Albany border in the north to the
Berkeley/Oakland border in the south.

Study Area
The Study Area includes the neighborhoods, commercial
districts, and employment areas that are proximate to
and have a strong relationship with the uses along San
Pablo Avenue. The Study Area extends from the I-80
freeway in the west to Sacramento Street in the east and from the Albany border in the north to Emeryville and
Oakland borders in the south (see Figure 1.2). The Study Area has been studied in select analyses throughout the Specific Plan process to gain an understanding of the
social and economic relationships between San Pablo
Avenue and West Berkeley, to identify historic and
culturally significant locations in proximity to San Pablo Avenue, and to identify parks, open spaces, and other
community assets that can be used by people living and
working in the Specific Plan Area.

Figure 1.1 San Pablo Avenue in Berkeley and adjacent cities Data from CD+A, Google Earth. 2025
Figure 1.2 Map of Study Area in relation to the City of Berkeley Data from CD+A, City of Berkeley. 2025

Page 364 of 990 ends
Page 688 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 12
Figure 1.3 Specific Plan Area
Data from CD+A, City of Berkeley. 2025
Specific Plan Area
The Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021) Priority
Development Area (PDA) informed the
definition of the Specific Plan Area (Specific
Plan Area) (see Regulatory Context below for
more information). The Specific Plan Area is
comprised of individual parcels for which the
Specific Plan's policies, standards, and
implementation actions apply. These parcels
primarily front onto San Pablo Avenue, as well
as some adjacent parcels on side-streets and
other adjacent areas that have the potential
to support new housing and mixed-use
development at a similar scale (see Chapter
3 Land Use for more detail). Along University
Avenue, the area covers parcels between
Ninth Street and Curtis Street (see Figure 1.3).

Page 365 of 990 ends
Page 689 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 13
Significance of the San Pablo Avenue Corridor
Running parallel to I-80, San Pablo Avenue connects tens of thousands of people each day to residential neighborhoods, employment centers, schools, public gathering spaces, shopping, services, and other key destinations in the East Bay. The character and intensity of the streetscape, development, and uses along San Pablo Avenue vary along its length; its connectivity and diversity of uses establish it as a mixed-use corridor in the East Bay.

As State Route 123, it also functions as a designated reliever route during incidents on the I -80 freeway. Due to this role, the right-of-way in Berkeley is under the jurisdiction of the State of California through Caltrans, requiring the City of Berkeley to obtain Caltrans approval before making physical changes to the street . For these reasons, San Pablo Avenue has been the subject of multiple regional planning efforts – such as the Association of Bay Area’s (ABAG) East Bay Corridor Initiative and Alameda County Transit Commission’s (A lameda CTC) San Pablo Avenue Corridor Projects. Berkeley has taken part in these efforts and has also followed the development and adoption of Specific Plans in neighboring jurisdictions with great interest.

Figure 1.4 The Key System and Berkeley sign at San Pablo Avenue and University Avenue, ca. 1925.

Photo from Berkeley Public Library. Calisphere, California Digital Library

Page 366 of 990 ends
Page 690 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 14
Historical Context
Originally known as part of the Lincoln Highway in the
early 1900s, San Pablo Avenue served as the primary
north-south connection from Oakland, through Berkeley
and to and through places to the north prior to the
construction of I-80. Its original role as a key regional and national route contributed to its designation as a state highway and shaped the avenue's pattern of region-
serving, auto-oriented land uses.

San Pablo Avenue and the Study Area are also part of
West Berkeley’s history of ethnic and racial segregation.

On the 1937 federal Home Owners' Loan Corporation
(HOLC) redlining maps, much of West Berkeley —
particularly the neighborhoods near San Pablo Avenue —
were marked in red and deemed “hazardous” for
investment, largely because of the presence of African
American, Asian American, and immigrant communities

(see Figure 1.5).1 These classifications led to systematic disinvestment, exclusion from mortgage lending, and
lasting economic and environmental inequalities. As a
result, West Berkeley became both a hub of diverse
working-class communities and a target of discriminatory practices limiting their access to housing elsewhere in the city.

At the same time, the area west of San Pablo Avenue
developed as one of Berkeley’s primary industrial and
manufacturing centers. Industries such as ironworks,
chemical production, food processing, and printing
thrived, drawing on the surrounding diverse workforce.

Although large-scale manufacturing declined after World War II, West Berkeley’s industrial legacy remains visible in its historic building stock. Today, a new generation of small-scale manufacturers, makers, and biotechnology
firms are located within the Study Area west of San Pablo Avenue, continuing the role of West Berkeley as a center of production and innovation. The Specific Plan Area’s
proximity to West Berkeley has led to some
complementary businesses locating on San Pablo
Avenue and supports general business vitality along San Pablo Avenue.

1 A detailed review on the History of Redlining in the East Bay can be found here:
https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/map/CA/Oakl and/context#loc=12/37.8839/-122.2562. Last accessed
10/02/2025.

Figure 1.5 Historical Redlined Areas and Equity Priority Communities Map Data from CD+A; R.K.Nelson and E.L.Ayers, Mapping Inequality, 2023; MTC, Equity Priority Communities, 2021

Page 367 of 990 ends
Page 691 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 15
Community Demographics
The Study Area has a greater racial and ethnic diversity compared to the city as a whole and Alameda County,
with a notably higher Black population. This pattern
reflects the legacy of historic redlining that shaped
neighborhood demographics and limited mobility for
communities of color.

Although the Supreme Court ruled
racially restrictive covenants unenforceable in Shelley v.

Kraemer (1948), redlining persisted until the Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibited the practice. Its impacts persist today, as formerly redlined areas continue to experience greater economic inequality and higher risk of
displacement.
2 As neighborhoods within the Study Area continue to grow, demographic shifts have varied across racial and ethnic groups. From 2000 to 2020, the White population
increased by over 3,900 (+45%), while the Black
population decreased by over 2,600 (-39%) (see Figure

1.6). The population increase of Hispanic/Latinx,
Asians/API, and other races during that period was
moderate.

As a result of being historically underserved, some
census blocks within the Study Area are part of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)’s Equity
Priority Communities (EPCs). The EPC designation helps
provide funding and assistance to census tracts that have a significant concentration of underserved populations. 3 2 United States Census Bureau. Decennial Census. 2010, Table P7. 2020, Table P1. 3 To learn more about the MTC/ABAG’s EPC designation and methodology, visit mtc.ca.gov.

The Study Area’s population in 2020 was 26,360. The
population grew 16% between 2010 to 2020,
representing 22% of the city’s total population and
outpacing the city’s overall population growth of 9% in the same period. 2
Figure 1.6 Study Area Demographic Change and Comparisons Left: Change in Study Area Racial and Ethnic Mix from 2000 to 2020 . Data from United States Census Bureau.

Decennial Census. 2000 and 2010, Table P7, and 2020, Table P1. Right: Comparison of Racial and Ethnic Mix in Study Area, Berkeley, and Alameda County. Data from United States Census Bureau. Decennial Census. 2020, Table P1.

Page 368 of 990 ends
Page 692 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 16
Economic Vitality Conditions
San Pablo Avenue is a unique commercial corridor in
Berkeley, historically defined by regional and specialty businesses, along with uses connected to industry and
manufacturing. Previous city plans and economic
assessments have characterized San Pablo Avenue in
ways that remain relevant today:
• Historic industrial identity: Once a center for
manufacturing and production, the West Berkeley
neighborhoods adjacent to San Pablo Avenue still
include industrially zoned areas. Automotive and
repair-related businesses continue to operate in the
Specific Plan Area, contributing to the local and
regional economy.4
• Commerce and production: Many businesses in the
Specific Plan Area produce goods on-site and sell
directly to customers, occupying a niche at the
intersection of commerce and light industry.4
• Regional destination: San Pablo Avenue functions
primarily as a destination for specialized goods and
services, such as auto repair, construction materials,
home improvement, specialty retail, and restaurants,
rather than serving as a walkable, neighborhood-
serving retail district.
5 This strong regional identity can at times be at odds with local aspirations for a more walkable, mixed-use
environment that supports multi-modal transportation
options, a broad range of businesses, and new infill
housing.

Vacancy and Broader Economic Impacts
San Pablo Avenue experienced a significant rise in
ground-floor commercial vacancies in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from the City of Berkeley’s Office of Economic Development indicates that San
Pablo Avenue’s ground floor commercial vacancy rate (by square footage) doubled from 5.5% in 2017 to 10.8% in
2022. The rate peaked in 2023 at 15.5%, reflecting
ongoing challenges for local businesses.

By 2024, the vacancy rate had declined to 7.1% along San Pablo Avenue
6, though there was a slight increase
through 2025 to 8.44%7. By comparison, the average
citywide vacancy rate was 7.5% in 2024 and 6.3%8 in
2026.

During the planning process, there were several high-
profile closures along San Pablo Avenue, many of which
were establishments with broad name recognition and
historic and cultural significance in Berkeley. KC’s BBQ, for instance, was a Black-owned, family-run business
that first opened in 1968; Kirsten Davis, a third-generation co-owner told NBC Bay Area in April 2023 that “The brick and mortar are a monster for a lot of small businesses.

People are trying to find funding and to hold onto and
retain employees.”
Despite these closures, the decline in vacancy rate and the arrival of new neighborhood-serving businesses

4 City of Berkeley. Office of Economic Development’s 2016 Economic Development Work Session, 2016. p.9, 13. 5 City of Berkeley. 2022 Economic Dashboard. Office of Economic Development, 2022. 6 City of Berkeley. Berkeley Economic Dashboards Update, 25 Feb. 2025, p. 3. Accessed 6 May 2025. 7 City of Berkeley. 2025 Commercial District Dashboard. Office of Economic Development, Feb. 2026. 8 City of Berkeley. 2025 Economic Dashboard, Feb. 2026. suggest that the Specific Plan Area could be on the cusp of a period of renewal. The Specific Plan aims to build on these conditions by encouraging small business
retention, improving storefront vitality, and reinforcing the Specific Plan Area’s role as a diverse, mixed-use district.

Figure 1.7 Vacant Storefront along San Pablo Avenue.

Photo by CD+A. August, 2023

Page 369 of 990 ends
Page 693 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 17
Planning Context
The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan is a key component of Berkeley’s broader long-range planning efforts. The Specific Plan’s policies and implementation strategy reflect recent changes in State housing and land use law that require a new approach to local planning. The Specific Plan is consistent with State guidance for the preparation of a specific plan, as identified in the California Government Code §65450-65457.

Regulatory Context
Citywide Policies
The City’s General Plan, adopted in 2002, outlines
Berkeley’s long-range vision and priorities for growth, development, and conservation. It includes elements on
Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Disaster
Preparedness and Safety, Open Space and Recreation,
Environmental Management, Economic Development
and Employment, Urban Design and Preservation, Citizen
Participation, and Implementation.

The Specific Plan will serve as an extension of the General Plan, providing policy and regulatory guidance tailored to the Specific Plan Area. All land-use decisions are
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.

The Housing Element of the City’s General Plan serves
as the City’s framework for housing goals, policies, and programs for meeting existing and future housing needs
and increasing affordable housing opportunities to
accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) established by the State. In the 2023-2031
Housing Element Update, approximately 31%, or 2,023,
of the housing units needed to accommodate the RHNA
fall within the Specific Plan Area, indicating the Specific Plan Area’s potential to accommodate a significant share of future housing. The Housing Element also identified
land use and zoning actions to help meet the RHNA,
including the implementation Program 27- Priority
Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit
Corridors to develop San Pablo Avenue as a PDA.

The West Berkeley Plan (adopted in 1993 and amended
in 2011) defines the City’s key land use, environmental, economic development, transportation, housing and
social services, and physical form policies for West
Berkeley, which includes the Specific Plan Area, as well as parts of the broader Study Area to the west of San
Pablo Avenue. The West Berkeley Plan defines West
Berkeley’s land use to support desired economic

9 More information regarding Priority Development Areas (PDAs) can be found on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Website mtc.ca.gov.
development, as well as identifies retail “nodes”,
including those that are now “designated nodes” in the C - W West Berkeley Commercial District zoning standards.

With the adoption of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, the West Berkeley Plan would be retired.). Additional
details can be found in Chapter 3 Land Use and in
Chapter 6 Administration Implementation.

Regional Policies
The PDA designation stems from Plan Bay Area 2050,
which is a long-range regional plan developed by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).9 Plan Bay
Area 2050 includes strategies to improve housing, the
economy, transportation, and the environment with a
focus on the region. As part of this effort, PDAs in
Berkeley were identified by the City and Bay Area Metro to promote sustainable development patterns for jobs and
housing in walkable and transit-oriented infill locations.

The PDA designation increases the City’s eligibility for funding to support improvements in a PDA and
improvements outside of a PDA that provide benefit to it.

Page 370 of 990 ends
Page 694 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 18
State Legislation
Many State laws and regional policies related to housing and land use have been approved since the adoption of
the City’s General Plan in 2002. The Berkeley Municipal Code continues to be updated to remain consistent with
these laws and policies. Many recent State laws have
made changes to the development review and approval
process, timeline, and requirements, as well as defined limitations on the City’s discretion regarding project
approval, conformance with certain development
standards, and the applicability of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Relationship to other
Planning Documents and Projects
Other related plans and improvements that support the
goals of the Specific Plan are discussed in their
respective chapters. Key connections to the Specific Plan are summarized below:
• The 2016 San Pablo Avenue Commercial Corridor
Report highlighted the area’s economic growth and
diversity, identifying long-term opportunities for land use, transportation, and public realm improvements.

While it did not propose immediate actions, its
recommendations, such as sidewalk upgrades,
public art, and branding, helped inform the goals of
Chapter 4 Economic Development.
• Previous planning efforts have addressed
streetscape issues along San Pablo Avenue. The San
Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan, adopted
on December 7, 2004, aimed to enhance San Pablo
Avenue for pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and transit
users, while also supporting revitalization of the
surrounding area. While some improvements have
been implemented, others remain unaddressed or
are outdated. The Specific Plan includes updated
streetscape standards as part of its public realm
improvement strategy, outlined in Chapter 5 Streets .

The Public Improvements Plan will be retired with the
adoption of the Specific Plan, see Chapter 6
Administration and Implementation.
• The Transit-First Policy Implementation Plan (2022)
identifies San Pablo Avenue as a Primary Transit
Route and a corridor for future study of transit
infrastructure needs based on the AC Transit Major
Corridors Study (2016). It describes the Alameda
CTC’s San Pablo Avenue Corridor Project as the
lead effort for designing transit improvements along
the Avenue. Concurrent with the Specific Plan
development, the Alameda CTC San Pablo Avenue
Corridor Project is providing key improvements in the
Specific Plan Area to improve safety and transit
reliability along San Pablo Avenue.
• The 2023–2031 Housing Element includes aims to
establish clear and objective development standards
in compliance with State law, while reassessing land
uses and permitting processes to support future
growth along these key corridors. The San Pablo
Avenue Design Standards Document has been
developed with the goal of creating cohesive, high-
level design guidance that aligns with the citywide
approach.

Figure 1.8 Key California Laws that Support Housing
Graphic by UPP, 2025

Page 371 of 990 ends
Page 695 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 19
Community Engagement and Specific Plan
Development Process
The Specific Plan’s community engagement process provided multiple opportunities for participants to share perspectives, ideas and feedback, representing a broad range of existing and future residents, workers, business owners, property owners, and street users. The process also included close collaboration with City staff and included regular discussions with the Planning Commission and City Councilmembers, as well as collaboration with staff from regional planning and transportation agencies.

Engagement Events and Methods
Phase 1
The outreach process in Phase 1 focused on gathering feedback on key issues and included a series of five interviews, a pop-up event, five focus group meetings, one survey, and one community open- house, held between 2023 and Spring 2024 (see Figure 1.9). Phase 1 of the outreach concluded in May 2024. The findings from this phase were summarized in the Community Assessment Report.

Phase 2
The outreach in Phase 2 focused on policy development and feedback to policy options created by the Specific Plan team . Phase 2 included two pop-ups to promote the community workshop, one community workshop, a survey, and a site tour in 2024. Community feedback echoed the issues outlined in Phase 1 and established the vision for the Specific Plan. (see Chapter 2 Vision).

Phase 3
The outreach in Phase 3 focused on feedback on the Public Review Draft and Specific Plan adoption. This phase involved four stakeholder interviews to gather preliminary feedback on the Public Review Draft Specific Plan, and a final Community Open House held in October 2025 to present the Public Review Draft Specific Plan and gather public feedback. Input from the Open House and additional comments received during the public comment period (from 10/30/25 date to 01/09/26 date) were documented, summarized, and presented to the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council, along with recommended changes and refinements included in the Final Draft Plan. Public comments received during the Commission and City Council meetings have been incorporated into the final Specific Plan.

Figure 1.9 Community Engagement Timeline

Page 372 of 990 ends
Page 696 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 20

Marcel Pardo Ariza: Municipal Artist-in-Residence
As part of the 2023-2024 Print Public Municipal Artist-in- Residence at Kala Art Institute, artist Marcel Pardo Ariza worked with Robert Rivera and the San Pablo Avenue
Specific Plan process. In response to the San Pablo
Avenue Corridor Study and in dialogue with local
community members, Marcel Pardo Ariza highlighted and
celebrated seven local businesses along San Pablo
Avenue: CASA LATINA, Belmo Cafe, Middle East Market,
Heyma Yemeni Coffee, Rainbow Donuts, Everett & Jones,
and Mi Ranchito Bayside Market. Through this
exploration, Ariza emphasized the critical role these
businesses play in the fabric and legacy of the
community, underscoring the urgent need for City
support in a landscape where vacant retail spaces
proliferate across the Bay Area.

As part of the Municipal Artist-in-Residence, Marcel
Pardo Ariza and Cheryl Derricotte presented their
exhibition Roadwork at Kala Gallery from October 24,
2024, to February 14, 2025.

What We’ve Heard
The community expressed strong support for developing more affordable, mixed-income housing, with a majority in favor of higher-intensity development along San Pablo Avenue. However, some participants voiced concerns that excessive building height or bulk could create a “tunnel effect” limiting sunlight and worsening the pedestrian experience.

There was broad agreement that the current sidewalks and mobility conditions are inadequate. Participants emphasized the need for safety and public realm improvements, including wider sidewalks, better pedestrian lighting, additional greenery, and public art to enhance comfort, livability and street identity.

Community members also supported activating ground floors with flexible commercial and creative uses. This approach is intended to reduce vacancies, prevent inactive storefronts, and strengthen the overall pedestrian experience in the Specific Plan Area.

Figure 1.10 Images of Marcel’s work for the Roadwork Exhibition Photos by Marcel Pardo Ariza, 2024

Page 373 of 990 ends
Page 697 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 21
Specific Plan Organization
The Specific Plan is organized into six chapters.

Chapter 1 serves as the introduction to the Specific Plan, while Chapter 2 lays out the visions and goals of the
Specific Plan. Chapters 3 through 5 form the core of the Specific Plan, outlining the proposed policies, programs, and standards that advance the vision and goals
established in Chapter 2. While each chapter focuses on a primary topic, they are not mutually exclusive, and
therefore, many policies are interrelated and advance the overall vision and goals across multiple topic areas. For example, policies in the Land Use (Chapter 3) and Streets – Transportation and Public Realm (Chapter 5) chapters
also support economic development (covered in Chapter
4) by shaping where commercial and retail activity is
prioritized as well as the pedestrian experience
throughout the Specific Plan Area.

The Specific Plan concludes with Chapter 6
Administration and Implementation, which summarizes
key priorities and actions needed to carry out the Specific Plan across each topic area.

The Specific Plan is accompanied by the San Pablo
Avenue Design Standards Document (Design
Standards Document). The Design Standards Document
is a tool to help implement the vision and guiding
principles of the Specific Plan. The intent of the Design Standards Document is to work in coordination with the
policies of the Specific Plan to implement its vision. The Design Standards Document provides a clear set
of objective standards while allowing flexibility and
creativity in design. In addition to the standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, projects must comply with the Design Standards Document.

Appendices:
• Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
• A ppendix B: Opportunity Sites
• A
ppendix C: Buildout Summary
Memorandum
• Appendix D: Street Improvements

Page 374 of 990 ends
Page 698 ends

Chapter 1: Introduction
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 22
How to use this Document
This Specific Plan includes land use, economic
development, public space, and transportation policies
and standards to support the Vision and Desired
Outcomes outlined in Chapter 2 Vision. To ensure clarity and ease of use:

Policies are the core statements of intent that guide
decision-making. They articulate the policies that will guide and shape future development, community
benefits, public investment, and implementation actions to achieve the community’s vision and desired outcomes
for the Specific Plan Area. Policies are organized in the Land Use, Economic Development, and Streets chapters.

Each policy is numbered using the first letters of their respective chapter, followed by a “P” and a sequential
number. For example, the first policy listed in the
Chapter 3 Land Use is numbered “LU-P.1”. All policies
appear in the chapter’s designated color.

Standards are measurable requirements that implement
the Specific Plan’s policies. They include zoning
regulations and development requirements. Standards
follow the same numbering system as the policies, using “S” instead of “P”. For example, the first standard in the Chapter 3 Land Use is numbered “LU-S.1”. All Standards
appear in the chapter’s designated color.

Specific standards are provided directly under the policy they intend to implement. These standards indicate their direct relationship to the corresponding policy. The land use and development standards are summarized in the
Specific Plan while the detailed standards are in the
Berkeley Municipal Code and the Design Standards
Document.

Chapter 6 Administration and Implementation includes
a discussion of the environmental review of the Specific Plan; a series of Implementation Tables, which outlines implementation actions, responsibilities, timelines, and funding mechanisms to carry out the Specific Plan’s
goals, and a discussion of how the Specific Plan will be administered including how it can be amended over time.

Page 375 of 990 ends
Page 699 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 23

Chapter 2 Vision and
Guiding Principles

The community envisions the Specific Plan Area as a mixed-use district that is integrated with the neighborhoods and employment areas that surround it.
“[We need a] [l]ively corridor where people from all walks of life can enjoy, mingle, and support local businesses. Good mix of housing, restaurants, stores (and grocery stores).” – Open House Comment
Central to this vision is redefining San Pablo Avenue not simply as a car-centric corridor, but as a place that connects east to west Berkeley and serves as an extension of surrounding neighborhoods.

Chapter 2
Vision and Guiding Principles

- Final Draft -

Page 376 of 990 ends
Page 700 ends

Chapter 2: Vision and Guiding Principles
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 24
Vision
More Housing Choices
The Specific Plan encourages more housing along San Pablo Avenue, offering more variety of unit types and building designs that meet the needs of residents ranging from young singles to families, seniors, and others. New and refined design standards, land use, and other policies for new development, paired with incentives for community-oriented spaces, seek to foster social interaction, support local businesses, and strengthen connections between new residents and the broader community.

Increased Business Activity to Support a Thriving Community The Specific Plan envisions San Pablo Avenue as a vibrant and economically resilient corridor with welcoming storefronts, active ground floors, and businesses that contribute to an engaging public realm.

Support for small and locally owned businesses encourages activation of ground-floor spaces and fosters a diverse mix of creative, community- oriented uses. Partnerships between businesses, the City, and neighborhood groups will facilitate community and cultural events that strengthen the identity of the Avenue and establish San Pablo Avenue as a distinctive mixed-use district.

Enhanced Interaction Between Public and
Private Spaces
The Specific Plan envisions streets where public and private spaces interact to support daily life and community vitality. Wider sidewalks, small plazas, and other gathering spaces provide welcoming places or “third spaces” for recreation, social interaction, and community events. Investments in street furniture, lighting, and landscaping aim to enhance safety, comfort, and accessibility for people of all ages and abilities, while preserving and expanding the tree canopy to create a greener, more inviting streetscape.

Enhanced Local and Citywide Access
The Specific Plan aims to build upon ongoing City-led and broader, regional efforts to transform San Pablo Avenue into a safe, inclusive, and welcoming thoroughfare that prioritizes access and mobility for people of all ages and abilities. By improving crossings, lighting, and streetscape design, and by supporting reliable transit and active transportation options, the street network can better connect residents to neighborhoods, parks, jobs, and the waterfront. This integrated approach reduces reliance on cars while preserving essential vehicle access and circulation.

“It is essential to ensure that
the plan addresses the
needs of the historically
underserved communities
around San Pablo Avenue.”
– Community advocate from
Beautiful San Pablo

“It is our urban center or spine.

Be more for the people that
live here. [We are] [m]issing
boutiques, groceries, and
practical things.”
– Open House Comment

“San Pablo Avenue is stressful. Just
realized it acts as a border, and I
hate crossing over it. Increase space
for people, less space for cars (i.e.
parklets, bulb outs, turn median into
park.)”
– Open House Comment

Page 377 of 990 ends
Page 701 ends

Chapter 2: Vision and Guiding Principles
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 25
Guiding Principles
How does the vision translate into guiding principles ? The table below outlines the guiding principles for each policy area. The table also illustrates where to find more detailed information about each policy area within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan chapters are abbreviated as follows: LU = Land Use, ED = Economic Development, PR = Streets and Public Realm, T = Streets and Transportation. The Design Standards Document is abbreviated: DS = Design Standards.

Page 378 of 990 ends
Page 702 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 26

Chapter 3
Land Use

The land uses along San Pablo Avenue have been shifting away from an historically regional - serving, auto-oriented land use pattern of primarily commercial and light industrial businesses. The Specific Plan Area is now seeing the addition of higher density residential and more local -serving commercial uses that are beginning to transform the Specific Plan Area into a more vibrant , mixed-use district .

-Final Draft -

Page 379 of 990 ends
Page 703 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 27
This chapter establishes a land use and development
framework to help achieve the community’s vision,
focusing on policies and development standards that will achieve the following outcomes:
 I ncrease the v
ariety of housing types and the supply
of housing at all affordability levels;
 Support commercial vitality and reduce ground-floor
vacancies;
 Promote active, pedestrian-oriented development
and public realm improvements; and
 Coordinate land use with transportation and
infrastructure investments.

Together with policies and programs in Chapter 4
Economic Development, Chapter 5 Streets -
Transportation and Public Realm, as well as the Design
Standards Document, and Chapter 6 Administration
and Implementation, the Land Use policies and
standards provide a unified framework to guide the
continued transformation of the Specific Plan Area into a mixed-use district that supports Berkeley’s housing,
equity, and economic goals while strengthening its role as a central place for community life.

The Specific Plan supersedes the 1993 West Berkeley
Plan for all properties within the Specific Plan Area while carrying forward its key goals related to land use and
community character. All future development must
comply with both this Specific Plan and the Berkeley
Municipal Code (BMC). Title 23 of the BMC contains the
zoning provisions that implement the Specific Plan, and any topics not addressed here are governed by the BMC , applicable building codes, and other local, County, State, and federal laws and regulations.

Summary of Community Vision
As detailed in Chapter 2 Vision and
Guiding Principles, the community
envisions the Specific Plan Area as a
mixed-use district that is integrated with
the neighborhoods and employment areas
that surround it. The Plan Area serves
Berkeley’s broad range of community
members and continues to support
citywide and regional needs.

Page 380 of 990 ends
Page 704 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 28
Existing Local and State Land Use Policies and
Standards
The Specific Plan land use framework is guided by both recent State housing laws and the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU). State laws – including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Density Bonus Law, Senate Bills (SB) 35 and 330, and more recently Assembly Bill (AB) 130 and SB 131 – have made changes to the development review process, timelines, and requirements, and have defined limitations on the City’s discretion regarding project approval, conformance with certain development standards, and the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These State laws have modified the City’s review process and have resulted in more streamlined review.

At a local level, the City’s Housing Element Update (HEU) establishes goals, policies, and programs to address housing affordability, preservation, production, and equity. Of partic ular relevance, Program 27 – Priority Development Areas,
Commercial and Transit Corridors, directed the initiation of the Specific Plan to increase densities, evaluate design standards and public improvements, and incentivize affordable housing.

The Specific Plan therefore functions as the primary tool to implement Program 27 while aligning with State housing
requirements and advancing the City’s adopted housing
strategies. A full description of applicable State and local policies is provided in Appendix A.

Land Use Plan
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The Specific Plan Area contains a mix of residential,
commercial, and light manufacturing uses. Residential
uses include single-family, multi-family, mixed-use, and live/work uses. There are a variety of existing commercial uses; however, the most common uses include services0F
1,
vehicle service and sales, restaurants, manufacturing
uses, and retail establishments. Common business types
include automobile repair and home-improvement supply
businesses. Many of these businesses are locally owned
and operate with brick-and-mortar storefronts,
contributing to the street’s unique and varied economic profile. As of 2023, there were approximately 2,588
existing housing units in the Specific Plan Area. The

1 Services include personal services such as laundromats and cleaners, as well as professional services such as retail finance services. For additional information, see the Key Existing Conditions in Appendix A. majority of those, about 2,018, are in multi-family
buildings with 5 or more units (see Figure 3.1). The
Specific Plan Area also includes approximately 1.49
million square feet of commercial space.

Land use is regulated by the City’s General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. As shown in Figure 3.2, the General
Plan land use designation along the entire San Pablo
Avenue frontage is Avenue Commercial. As shown in
Figure 3.3, the zoning district for properties fronting on San Pablo Avenue is West Berkeley Commercial (C -W).

The portion of University Avenue within the Specific Plan Area includes parcels located within the C-W and C-U

Berkeley’s Planning Context on
Affordable Housing
Housing Element Update establishes a
framework to increase affordable housing
opportunities, which was a driving factor for
the creation of this Specific Plan.

Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund pools
funding and administers grants for
affordable housing construction and
renovation.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (BMC

23.328) requires developers to contribute to
the growth of affordable housing in the city.

Berkeley’s Affordable Housing Preference
Policy (July 2023) gives people who have
lost or are at risk of losing housing in
Berkeley priority when new affordable
housing units become available.

For more detail on Affordable Housing, see
Appendix A – Affordable Housing Policies
and Potential Production.

Page 381 of 990 ends
Page 705 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 29
(University Avenue Commercial) zoning districts. Other
zoning districts within the Specific Plan Area include
Mixed Use-Light Industrial (MU-LI), Mixed Use-
Residential (MU-R), Restricted Two-Family Residential (R- 2), Restricted Multiple-Family Residential (R-2A), and
Multi-Family Residential (R-4).

The 1 993 West Berkeley P
lan and the City’s Zoning
Ordinance also include Commercial Designated Nodes
at the following major intersections along San Pablo
Avenue: Gilman Street, Cedar Street, University Avenue, Dwight Way, and Ashby Avenue (see Figure 3.4). The
purpose of the Designated Nodes is to intensify retail, commercial, and mixed-use activity to support a
commercial and pedestrian-oriented environment by
requiring new development to include certain ground-
floor commercial uses. A full description of existing land uses is provided in Appendix A.

C-W Zoning Evaluation
The current C-W zoning district establishes different
height limits for single-use and mixed-use residential
buildings. Single-use projects, whether residential or
commercial, are limited to 3 stories (40 feet), while
mixed-use projects may reach 4 stories (50 feet). The
additional height allowance for a mixed-use project is
intended to encourage the development of ground -floor
commercial spaces.

However, feedback from real estate developers during
the Specific Plan’s community engagement process
revealed that in many cases there is insufficient demand for ground floor commercial space. Nevertheless, many
projects continue to include ground-floor commercial
space because under State Density Bonus Law, the
additional residential floor area granted to mixed -use projects typically outweighs the cost of constructing the commercial space, even if it remains vacant. This has
contributed to an oversupply of ground-floor commercial space, diluting retail concentration and undermining the intended role of Designated Nodes as focal points for
commercial activity.

In response, the Specific Plan process re-evaluated how maximum building height and ground floor use
requirements can be structured along San Pablo Avenue
to better align with market conditions and achieve the
Specific Plan’s goal of vibrant, active Designated Nodes.

During the Specific Plan’s community engagement
process, many community members expressed support
for increased residential density and building intensity along San Pablo Avenue to allow for greater housing
capacity and economic activity. Overall, participants
favored allowing a maximum building height between 8 to 12 stories, with taller buildings being primarily
concentrated at the Ashby, University, and Gilman
Designated Nodes.

Figure 3.1. Distribution of Existing Housing Units in the Plan Area by Type.

Source: City of Berkeley, 2023.
242
328
2018
Plan Area Existing Housing Units
Single Family
Multifamily (2-4 units)
Multifamily (5+ units)

Page 382 of 990 ends
Page 706 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 30
Figure 3.2. Existing Berkeley General Plan Land Use Designations Source: City of Berkeley, 2023 and CD+A, 2025

Page 383 of 990 ends
Page 707 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 31
Figure 3.3. Existing Zoning Map
with C-W and C-U Designated Nodes in the Specific Plan Area. Source: City of Berkeley, 2023, CD+A, 2026.

Page 384 of 990 ends
Page 708 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 32

Land Use and Zoning Policies and Standards
This section details the land use and zoning policies and standards for the Specific Plan Area.

The policies and standards reflect and align with current community needs , development patterns , and S tate and local legislation.

The land use policies and standards work in tandem with existing City policies, programs and standards, the Zoning Ordinance, the Design Standards Document, as well as
with the Specific Plan’s policies regarding transportation, public realm, and economic development. These
elements support the Specific Plan’s guiding principles, which are:
• More Housing Choices
• Increased Business Activity to Support a Thriving
Community
• Enhanced Interaction Between Public and Private
Spaces
• Enhanced Local and Citywide Access
In alignment with these guiding principles, the land use policies and standards seek to:
• Concentrate retail uses and active ground floor uses
within Designated Nodes.
• Provide design standards to ensure the viability of
newly constructed ground-floor commercial space.
• Provide incentives for development to enhance and
expand the public realm.

Zoning, Nodes, and Development Policies (P) and
Standards (S)
The boundary of the Specific Plan Area was informed by
MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021) Priority
Development Area (PDA)1F

2. During the boundary
assessment, the PDA boundary was refined based on
attributes such as split zoning, near-term development, ownership, or other boundary inconsistencies.

Within the Specific Plan Area, the following policies and standards apply as follows:
• Parcels located on San Pablo Avenue and select
parcels on University Avenue are subject to the
newly established Commercial San Pablo (C-SP)
zoning district (see LU-P.1 Establish the Commercial San Pablo (C-SP) District). Select parcels within the MU-LI zoning district are eligible for affordable and family friendly housing (see LU-P.5 Facilitate Housing on MU-LI Parcels)
• Parcels within residential districts are not subject to any Specific Plan policy, unless explicitly mentioned. • The San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program (LU-P.10 Establish a Pilot San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program ) applies to all parcels within the Specific Plan Area.

LU-P.1 Establish the Commercial San Pablo (C -SP) District The Specific Plan establishes the Commercial San Pablo (C-SP) District to replace the existing Commercial West Berkeley (C-W) and Commercial University (C-U) zoning districts within the Specific Plan Area (see Figure 3.3). The C- SP zoning district increases residential and mixed-use development intensity within the Specific Plan Area by allowing greater building height, residential density and floor area ratio (FAR), and reducing minimum setbacks.

2 See Chapter 1, Definition of Specific Plan Area
Originally known as part of the Lincoln Highway in
the early 1900s, San Pablo Avenue shaped West
Berkeley’s history by fostering a hub of diverse
working-class communities. San Pablo Avenue’s
historic industrial identity is still visible today, with many businesses producing and selling goods on-
site, and a highly diverse mix of commercial
activities.

For more details on the history of San Pablo, see
Chapter 1, Significance of the San Pablo Avenue
Corridor.

Page 385 of 990 ends
Page 709 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 33
LU-P.2 Focus Commercial Uses within Designated Nodes
The Specific Plan utilizes the existing Designated Node structure adopted with the West Berkeley Plan to
strategically concentrate commercial uses at key
intersections with crossing transit routes. These are
the same Designated Nodes, with some modifications,
identified in the West Berkeley Plan and the existing C- W zoning district regulations.

Designated No des are located at the intersections of
San Pablo Avenue and the following cross streets:

Gilman Street, Cedar Street, University Avenue,

Dwight Way, and Ashby Avenue.

To preserve and encourage active street frontages with
commercial, retail, and community-serving uses
within Designated Nodes, ground-floor frontages,
regardless of use, are required to provide a connection between the public realm and ground floor activities
(see LU-P.9 Establish Ground Floor Form Types to
Promote Pedestrian-Scaled and Flexible Ground
Floors and the Design Standards Document for design
standards). Recognizing the need for flexibility over the course of this long-range plan, land use policies
expand allowed uses and promote short-term uses,
while ensuring flexibility for changing uses and future adaptation (see LU-P.8 Expand Allowed Primary and
Temporary Uses). Together, these policies are
intended to balance near-term flexibility with long-
term commercial viability.

Figure 3.4. Proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
Designated Nodes
Source: CD+A, City of Berkeley, 2026.

Page 386 of 990 ends
Page 710 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 34
LU-P.3 Boundary Adjustments and Re- zonings
The Specific Plan establishes the C-SP zoning district (see Figure 3.5). The boundary derives from the Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021) Priority Development Area (PDA) (see Chapter 1, Regional Policies for more information); as outlined in LU-P.1 Establish the Commercial San Pablo (C-SP) Zoning District and the C-SP Designated Nodes, as described in LU-P.2 Establish Nodes to Focus Commercial Uses. To ensure consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the following rezoning actions are included with adoption of the Specific Plan:
• R ezone all existing C-W parcels o
n San Pablo Avenue within the Specific Plan Area to C-SP. • Rezone existing C-U parcels within the Specific Plan Area to C-SP. • Rezone 12 parcels to C-SP. These parcels front either San Pablo Avenue or University Avenue. In cases where the split-zoned portion of a parcel fronts on a side-street, the split zone is maintained. • Establish new C-SP Designated Nodes within the Specific Plan Area.

Parcels in the Specific Plan Area located within the MU-LI, R-1, R-2, or R-3 zoning districts would not be re-zoned to C- SP. While these parcels are located within the PDA boundary, they are not subject to any of the above rezoning actions. Only the following land use policies and standards in this chapter apply to these parcels : LU-P.10 Establish a San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program and LU-P.11 Artist Housing and Cultural Districts.

LU-P.4 Amend the General Plan and Map
The Specific Plan requires amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map to implement policies of the Specific Plan, such as establishing the C-SP zoning district, Designated Nodes, and Affordable and Family Friendly Housing on certain parcels in the MU-LI zoning district to support higher-density development in the Specific Plan Area. General Plan amendments include text changes to the Avenue Commercial Land Use designation to incorporate the C-SP zoning district and a map amendment to re-designate parcels within the C-SP zoning district as Avenue Commercial (AC), as well as amendments to the University Avenue S trategic Plan text to remove the existing San Pablo Avenue Node, and retirement of the West Berkeley Plan.

Page 387 of 990 ends
Page 711 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 35
Figure 3.5. Existing and Proposed Zoning Map with Designated Nodes in the Specific Plan Area Left: Existing Zoning. Right: Proposed Zoning. Source: City of Berkeley, 2023 and Community Design + Architecture, 2025.

Page 388 of 990 ends
Page 712 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 36
LU-P.5 Facilitate Housing on MU-LI Parcels
To support City efforts toward meeting regional housing goals, the Specific Plan enables housing to be developed on appropriate MU-LI parcels within the Specific Plan Area (see Figure in the BMC). Recognizing the unique constraints and value created by allowing housing on these parcels, the Specific Plan allows two types of housing:
• 1 00 percent Affordable Housing ; and
• Family-sized housing projects that dedicate at least 50 percent of the project’s total residential unit floor area to units containing either two or three bedrooms)
E
ligible projects shall comply with the C-SP zoning district development standards (see Zoning Ordinance ).

These two paths consider that in 2025, land values in the MU -LI district were approximately half the value of comparable residentially zoned sites. This is primarily due to the prohibition on residential use within the MU -LI district, as well as the lower rents commanded by industrial uses. By allowing the housing in development projects to be either 100 percent affordable and/or provide 50 percent of their gross residential unit floor area as family-sized units, this policy intends to improve the ability of affordable housing developers to acquire these sites and ensure that new housing better serves families in Berkeley.

While these parcels are in “moderate resource” census tracts and may be less competitive for some State affordable housing funding, this policy creates a clear zoning pathway that enables housing development as additional funding becomes available. It also addresses a gap in State housing laws, which generally do not permit residential development in manufacturing districts, by creating a local mechanism for housing that allows the development of mixed-use residential projects on MU-LI parcels in the Specific Plan Area if it meets the affordability and/or family - sized unit requirements.

LU-P.6 Planning and Commercial Use Permit Streamlining To support small business vitality in the Specific Plan Area, a one-time review of the City’s efforts to streamline planning approval and building permit processes, including commercial uses, new residential and mixed-use development, commercial tenant improvements, event permits, and temporary use permits shall be conducted. The review shall include any relevant City processes affecting permitting feasibility and timeline for approvals in the C-SP District.

LU-P.7 Public Open Space Enhancements
The Specific Plan incentivizes high-quality, publicly accessible open space within private development projects in the C-SP zoning district to enhance the pedestrian environment, support placemaking, and deliver community benefits along San Pablo Avenue. Projects that qualify for any of the incentives described in this policy may receive a reduction in the amount of Private Open Space required (see Zoning Ordinance for details).

LU-S.1 Sidewalk Expansion Incentive
The Specific Plan incentivizes an additional ground floor front setback, beyond the minimum required setback, for new development that fronts San Pablo Avenue, Gilman Street, Cedar Street, Hopkins Street, University Avenue, Dwight Way, and Ashby Avenue (see Zoning Ordinance for details) to improve the pedestrian environment and support street activation along these streets.

Specifically, the i ncentive requires s
idewalk widening of the Frontage Zone (see PR-S.1 Sidewalk Zone Standards) on all streets within the Specific Plan Area. Sidewalk design and use must comply with the policies and standards in Chapter 5, Sidewalk Space as well as the Design Standards Document.

Page 389 of 990 ends
Page 713 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 37
LU-S.2 Privately- Owned Public ly Accessible Open Space within Designated Nodes Incentive
The Specific Plan incentivizes the creation of high-quality privately-owned and publicly accessible open space (POPOS) within Designated Nodes to enhance placemaking and provide community open space ( see Zoning Ordinance for details and PR-P.18 Privately Owned Public Spaces). POPOS design and use must comply with the applicable standards and requirements in the Design Standards Document.

LU-S.3 Side-Street Plaza Incentive
The Specific Plan incentivizes the creation of side-street plazas to encourage the enhancement of the pedestrian environment and support placemaking along San Pablo Avenue (see Zoning Ordinance for details). Specifically, residential or mixed-use projects may contribute to designing and building side-street plazas that meet the design, access, maintenance and operation standards described in PR-P.15 Side-Street Plazas at certain intersections, subject to approval of the Public Works Department.

LU-S.4 Mid-Block Passage Incentive
The Specific Plan incentivizes the creation of public mid-block passages within new through-lot development (defined as a development project site that exceed s more than 170 linear feet of frontage along either San Pablo Avenue or University Avenue). Mid-block passages must comply with the applicable standards and requirements in the Design Standards Document and the Zoning Ordinance.

When t wo adjacent sites are developed concurrently, developers are encouraged to coordinate site planning efforts to identify and implement opportunities for mid-block connections or shared access improvements that enhance pedestrian and multimodal circulation.

LU-S.5 Development Standards
As described in LU-P.1 Establish the Commercial San Pablo (C-SP) District above, the Zoning Ordinance will be amended to establish the C-SP zoning district. The development standards in the C-SP zoning district, which include a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 4.25 for residential only and mixed-use development, will define the building envelope for new development in the Specific Plan Area. These standards ensure that new buildings contribute to an active, walkable, and inclusive public realm within the Specific Plan Area. The standards support a variety of building types and intensities to ensure flexibility over the course of this long-range plan. These standards are complemented by the Design Standards Document and other land use policies and standards in this chapter. Together, the development standards and design standards are intended to foster predictable development standards, and high- quality development outcomes throughout the Specific Plan Area . It is possible that modifications will be made to this Specific Plan over time to maintain consistency with changing State legislation and regulations, as well as to meet the Specific Plan’s guiding principles.

LU-S.6 Design Standards
Complementary to the development standards in LU-S.5 Development Standards, the Specific Plan establishes design standards to ensure that new buildings contribute to an active, walkable, and inclusive public realm within the Specific Plan Area. The design standards support a variety of building types and intensities to ensure flexibility over the course of this long-range plan. The Design Standards Document provides objective standards to further the vision and guiding principles of the Specific Plan by:
• P romoting a built form and architectural character that reinforces San Pablo Avenue’s distinctive place in the city, that supports walking, and sustains a diverse, active and safe public realm. • Requiring high quality design of street-facing building exteriors. • Minimizing the visual impact of parking.

Page 390 of 990 ends
Page 714 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 38
• Ensuring that building form gives special attention to corner locations to strengthen intersection identity and visibility.
• E nsur ing that o
pen space provided in new development supports social interaction and livable outdoor areas while providing a suitable level of privacy for residents.

LU-S.7 S treetscape Standards
The Specific Plan continues to require that new development provide streetscape improvements that meet the Specific Plan’s streetscape standards (see Streetscape in Chapter 5) in the Specific Plan Area. This is an existing requirement in the San Pablo Avenue Public Improvement Plan (2003) that is carried over to this Specific Plan.

Allowed Uses
The Specific Plan aims to provide for a broad mix of land uses that contribute to a vibrant, economically resilient, and pedestrian-oriented Specific Plan Area. The mix of allowed uses serves the community while supporting small businesses, and preserving existing legacy businesses and cultural institutions. Specifically, t he following uses are encouraged within the Specific Plan Area:

Residential – Residential uses are allowed anywhere in the Specific Plan Area, either as standalone residential or as part of a mixed-use project. Within Designated Nodes, live/work units are prohibited fronting any street, and residential units located on the ground floor are prohibited fronting certain streets (for required and allowed floor form types see LU-P.9 Establish Ground Floor Form Types to Promote Pedestrian- Scaled and Flexible Ground Floors and the Design Standards Document)
Retail & General Commercial – Retail and general commercial, including restaurants and cafés, are allowed throughout the Specific Plan Area, and encouraged at Designated Nodes. Temporary retail and general commercial uses are also permitted with streamlined approvals to reduce vacancies, enhance commercial vibrancy, and support small business.

Public & Quasi-Public – Community-serving and civic uses such as community centers, libraries, schools and cultural institutions are allowed throughout the Specific Plan Area , including fronting any street in Designated Nodes.

Offices & Workspaces – Professional and medical offices, makerspaces and light-industrial uses compatible with residential are permitted in the Specific Plan Area, including on the ground floor fronting any street in Designated Nodes.

Arts & Entertainment - Arts, entertainment, gallery, and studio spaces are encouraged throughout the Specific Plan Area, including on the ground floor fronting any street in Designated Nodes.

LU-P.8 Expand Allowed Primary and Temporary Uses
The Specific Plan expands the list of allowed uses through the C-SP zoning district (see LU-P.1 Establish the Commercial San Pablo (C-SP) Zoning District), which increases flexibility for both primary and temporary uses. The Specific Plan also provides a pathway for affordable housing development to promote a diverse mix of land uses that support an active, pedestrian-oriented and economically resilient Specific Plan Area (see LU-P.5 Facilitate Housing on MU-LI Parcels).

Compared to the existing C-W District, the C-SP District a llows for a
more active, flexible, and community-oriented mixed-use environment through the following strategies (see the Zoning Ordinance):
• Expand the number of allowed uses while prohibting heavy- industrial and manufacturing uses incompatible with residenital uses.

Expanding allowable and temporary
uses in the C-SP District provides
flexibility to support changing
business needs through varying
economic conditions over the life of
the Specific Plan. For more
information and data, see Chapter
1, Vacancy and Broader Economic
Impacts.

Page 391 of 990 ends
Page 715 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 39
• Expand the number of primary uses permitted with a Zoning Certificate (by-right), such as office uses, public markets, co-working spaces, galleries, and makerspaces (a type of light-industrial use). • A llow e xisting off-s
treet parking to be used as a parklet for outdoor commercial and public use(s) by-right, and temporary uses (see Figure 3.6).2F
• Expand the list of temporary uses allowed with a Zoning Certificate to reduce ground floor vacancies and support small business creation.
• Allow 100% affordable housing conversion of existing non-residential buildings in the C-SP, consistent with State Law.3F
3 • Allow 100% affordable housing or multi-family residential projects that include family-sized housing on certain MU-LI zoned parcels (See LU-P.5 Facilitate Housing on MU-LI parcels). • In the Designated Nodes, allow a variety of uses beyond a 50 foot depth from the ground floor building frontage.

3 Government Code Sections 65912.100–65912.140.

Adaptive Reuse of Parking Lots
Along 4th Street in Long Beach, CA, a Street Corridor Visioning Study* created a framework for opportunities to activate the pedestrian realm. An idea of “bulb -ins” created pilot plaza spaces at the edge of parking lots that fronted the sidewalk. There is one plaza at the corner of a parking lot that is permanent . The bulb-in concept provides an idea of the types of spaces and activation that are possible with underutilized parcels and parking lots along a commercial corridor.

For a number of years, the Bixby Knolls Business Improvement Association has hosted ‘Concerts in the Park (in Lot)’ which is a free series of early evening concerts/dances that take place in a portion of a commercial shopping center’s parking lot where people can get food from surrounding restaurants and enjoy the concerts. These events are similar to performances in the Berkeley Downtown Plaza on Shattuck Avenue.

Figure 3.6. Examples of Adaptive Reuse of Parking Lots
Left: Parking Lot “bulb-i n” open space, 4th Street, Long Beach. Photo from Long Beach 4th Street Visioning Study, p.23.

Right: Bixby Knolls Business Improvement Association, 2023. Photo by bixbyknollsinfo.com . ________
* For more information, see City of Long Beach. Long Beach 4th Street Visioning Study, December 2025.

Page 392 of 990 ends
Page 716 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 40
Ground Floor Form Types
Ground floor design requirements play a critical role in shaping the pedestrian experience, supporting local businesses, and ensuring a vibrant street life. To support the Specific Plan’s goals of a more active, pedestrian- oriented, and economically resilient area, the Specific Plan establishes four ground floor form types. These form types are designed to respond to different context conditions within the Specific Plan Area, while providing flexibility to adapt to changing demand over time.

LU-P.9 Establish Ground Floor Form Types to Promote Pedestrian -Scaled and Flexible Ground Floors
The Specific Plan establishes four ground floor form types—Storefront, Active, Residential, and Live/Work—with tailored design standards to support an adaptable and walkable public realm and prioritize transparency, architectural articulation, and seamless adaptability between various commercial uses in the C-SP zoning district (see the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Standards Document).

Ground Floor Types
Storefront: Designed to allow for visibility from the
sidewalk in support of a pedestrian-oriented public
realm. These standards allow spaces to respond to
changing economic conditions while maintaining
compatibility with a wider range of uses. Storefront
Ground Floors are required within Designated
Nodes with a few exceptions.

Figure 3. 7. Storefront
Frontage Design
Building fronting San Pablo
Avenue. Photo by CD+A

Active: Designed for all non-residential uses,
Active Ground Floors provide more design flexibility
than Storefront Ground Floors.

Figure 3.8. Example of
Active Frontage Design
Building fronting San Pablo
Avenue. Photo by CD+A

Residential: Designed for residential units at the
ground floor, Residential Ground Floors require a
transition or connection from the public sidewalk
to a residential unit, including entry patios, stoops,
and shallow landscaped setbacks.

Figure 3. 9. Elevated
Individual Residential
Entries
Photo by AWP

Live/work: Designed for the unique needs of
spaces that support both living and working at the
ground floor outside of Designated Nodes,
including requiring a storefront character.

Figure 3. 10.

Street Facing
Frontage of Live/Work
Unit
Photo by AWP

Page 393 of 990 ends
Page 717 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 41
San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program
State Density Bonus law allows developers to increase the allowable residential density of a project in exchange for providing affordable housing on-site. The law also allows developers to waive, reduce or modify development standards, such as setbacks, design standards, and open space requirements , as needed to accommodate the affordable units.

Throughout the Specific Plan’s community engagement process, residents emphasized housing goals that extend beyond simply increasing unit production. Key priorities included improv ing housing affordability, ensuring high- quality housing design that fosters social connection, and increased public open space and community gathering areas.

Establishing a San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program provides an alternative to the State Density Bonus within the Specific Plan Area that allows the City to achieve affordable housing production while maintaining greater control over the form and character of development in the Specific Plan Area. By choosing the San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program, a project applicant can receive the same density benefits as though the State Density Bonus by paying into the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund instead of providing units on-site.

By offering a local alternative to the State Density Bonus, the City receives an affordable housing benefit, while maintaining control over which waivers and concessions apply to eligible projects. This Program ensures that important urban design standards and public realm improvements in this Specific Plan—such as active ground floor frontages and open space requirements—are provided.

The City’s Inclusionary Housing policies continue to apply to all market-rate development, meaning every project contributes to affordable housing—either through on-site units or in-lieu fees. The San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program provides an additional pathway for developers to achieve equivalent density while aligning new development with community objectives, particularly in housing affordability, urban design, and public realm improvements.

LU-P.10 Establish a Pilot San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program The Specific Plan establishes a pilot San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program through an affordable-housing benefit for new residential ownership (condominium) projects that is exclusively met through paying an in- lieu fee to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The following components shall be included in the program:

Program Exclusivity
• S
hould a project utilize the San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program, the project must w aive use of State
Density Bonus.
• Developers must declare their choice to use either the San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program or State Density Bonus at the time of application.

Affordable Housing Contribution
• In-lieu fee shall be placed in the City of Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund equivalent to the City’s inclusionary housing in-lieu fee (currently $62.83 per square foot of residential floor area). • Funds shall be prioritized for projects within the Specific Plan Area to support the creation and preservation of affordable housing.
• Fund management and allocation will be determined in accordance with the City of Berkeley Housing Trust Fund and Small Sites Program Guidelines, as amended.

Incentives
Bonus density, waivers, and concessions under this program shall mirror the structure of the State Density Bonus , with the exception that the City may identify certain standards (e.g., ground floor design) that are not eligible for waiver under the San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program.

Page 394 of 990 ends
Page 718 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 42
Art and Culture
The Specific Plan’s policies supporting increased flexibility for temporary uses and encouraging pop -up uses in parking lots and otherwise vacant ground floor space creates opportunities for arts and craft galleries, studios, and makerspaces in the Specific Plan Area, which would support creation of an art and cultural district.

LU-P.11 Artists Housing and Cultural District s
State law allows for locally required affordable housing to be set aside for artists within one-half mile of a State-designated cultural district or a similar local designated district.4F
4 The Specific Plan Area is not currently within one-half mile of such a district. However, if the City designates a cultural district that is within one- half mile of the Specific Plan Area, consideration should be given to creating an affordable artist housing area within the Specific Plan Area. Creation of this area should be coordinated with the Civic Arts Commission and the Housing Advisory Commission to support additional affordable housing while strengthening craftmanship, cultural representation and identity within the Specific Plan Area.

See Figure 3.7 example of art within the Specific Plan Area.

Opportunity Sites and Potential Buildout
The most substantial redevelopment opportunities in the Specific Plan Area consist of the 51 Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the City’s Housing Element Update (HEU), along with an additional 15 sites identified through the Specific Plan process.

In the HEU, Opportunity Sites are 1 of 3 categories in the State-required Housing Sites Inventory. The inventory demonstrates that there is adequate land for the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The 3 site types are:
• Likely Sites – parcels with approved housing projects (at the time of the HEU). • Pipeline Sites – parcels with housing applications in process (at the time of the HEU). • Opportunity Sites – parcels without active redevelopment applications that are either vacant or underutilized and have near-term potential for residential or mixed-use development.

The classification of Opportunity Sites is important for State housing law because it establishes a jurisdiction’s ability to meet RHNA targets. Opportunity Sites are typically those where development standards , parcel size, infrastructure capacity, and market conditions make residential development feasible within the HEU’s planning period.

The full Housing Element Site’s Inventory is available in the adopted HEU on the City’s website. 5F 5 4 California Government Code Section 65914.8.
5 City of Berkeley, Housing Element Sites Inventory, dated 7/28/2023. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/HEU_Sites%20Inventory_Tables-webpage.pdf As part of the 2023-2024 Print Public Municipal Artist-in-Residence at Kala Institute, artist Marcel Pardo Ariza researched and documented the culture and diversity along San Pablo Avenue. Interviews with business owners documenting hopes, fears and opportunities on the changing landscape are available in Chapter 2, Interview with Business Owners.

Figure 3.11 Wall Mural
1901 San Pablo Avenue. Photo
by CD+A

Page 395 of 990 ends
Page 719 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 43
During the Specific Plan process, an additional 15 parcels were identified that meet the HEU O pportunity Site criteria but were not included in the original inventory (see Appendix B). These include parcels that meet at least one of these criteria:
• H ave become eligi ble as Op
portunity Sites since adoption of the HEU,
• Share ownership with a HEU-listed Opportunity Site, and/or • Have site-specific characteristics warranting inclusion despite being omitted from the original list.

Development Potential and Buildout
The Specific Plan estimates the amount of new development that could occur in the Specific Plan Area during the planning period. The estimates are based on 4 categories of development potential:

1. HEU Likely and Pipeline Units – already developed or assumed to develop under existing C -W zoning and development standards.

2. HEU Opportunity Units – assumed to develop under proposed Specific Plan zoning and development standards.

3. New Specific Plan Area Opportunity Units – assumed to develop under proposed Specific Plan zoning development standards.

4. SDB Opportunity Units – assumed to develop from the utilization of State Density Bonus (SDB) on every opportunity site in the Specific Plan Area up to 8-stories.

In addition to housing, the buildout analysis estimates changes in commercial square footage as parcels redevelop.

The results are summarized in Table 3.2.

As shown, under maximum buildout
assumptions, the Specific Plan Area can
accommodate approximately 8,000 new multi-
family housing units. This level of housing growth
supports an estimated 20,000 new residents,
based on the HEU’s average household size for
multi-family residential.

This potential residential growth represents a
significant share of the City’s overall housing
strategy. In the context of the Housing Element,
the Specific Plan Area accounts for a substantial
portion of new housing capacity in transit-rich
locations. Accordingly, the Specific Plan
leverages existing infrastructure and facilitates
the creation of a more walkable, mixed-use
district near transit.

Approximately 3,500 of these housing units are
already anticipated in the HEU, meaning the
Specific Plan increases the maximum potential
buildout by roughly 4,500 units. This figure
represents the maximum theoretical
development capacity; actual development
depends on market conditions, property owner decisions, and other factors . Not all sites are expected to redevelop within the Specific Plan’s time horizon, so the maximum buildout is unlikely to occur .

The increase in development capacity proposed as part of the Specific Plan may affect the amount of commercial square footage within the Specific Plan Area. Although a net decrease in commercial square footage is estimated, it is difficult to quantify the extent of this change under existing zoning regulations given the shifting demand for commercial uses and the high rate of ground floor vacancy. It is expected that the increase in residential development will incrementally reduce opportunities for new commercial uses and eliminate some existing Table 3.2 Estimated Maximum Buildout
Type Unit / Sq. Ft.

Residential (Multi-Family) Units
HEU Likely and Pipeline Units 1,500
HEU Opportunity Units 3,900
New Specific Plan Area Opportunity Units 1,500
SDB Opportunity Units 1,100
Total New Dwelling Units (rounded) 8,000
Commercial Sq. Ft.

New Commercial 92,000
Lost due to New Housing 411,000
Net Change -319, 000
Existing 1,491,000
Total After Buildout (rounded) 1,17 1 ,000

Page 396 of 990 ends
Page 720 ends

Chapter 3: Land Use
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 44
commercial uses. This net reduction may appear counter to economic development goals, but the intent of the policies outlined in this chapter is to facilitate redevelopment of underutilized properties over time (i.e., properties consisting of low-intensity uses with limited pedestrian engagement) with higher-quality, more flexible commercial spaces integrated into mixed-use buildings, particularly within Designated Nodes. These improvements spill over to other commercial uses and promote overall business viability, supporting a diverse mix of uses and reducing long- term vacancy without compromising an engaging public realm .

A full description of the Specific Plan Buildout is provided in Appendix C.

Page 397 of 990 ends
Page 721 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 45

Chapter 4
Economic Development

San Pablo Avenue has long served as a vital commercial corridor in West Berkeley – home to many small , locally owned businesses, light industrial uses, auto-related uses, service providers, and community institutions that reflect the neighborhood’s cultural and economic diversity. Today, the Specific Plan Area faces both opportunities and challenges ; shifting retail dynamics, market conditions, storefront vacancies are transforming the business landscape . An increased focus on adding new mixed -use development in the area will create new market opportunities .

- Final Draft -

Page 398 of 990 ends
Page 722 ends

Chapter 4: Economic Development
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 46
Throughout the Specific Plan process, the community
voiced that San Pablo Avenue should be a lively and
inclusive area that represents and serves the people who live nearby and supports new residents as homes are
built in the Specific Plan Area. Community members,
local business owners, and stakeholders voiced
concerns about the risk of commercial displacement, the loss of their historically diverse cultural identities, and the lack of support for existing businesses. For example,
business owners are not aware of existing City programs for small business loans, business planning, and other
supports. Several mention
concerns about lack of parking
enforcement having a negative
effect on clientele being able to
conveniently access their business,
and lack of maintenance in the
street and with adjacent properties.

Participants at community
engagement events emphasized
the need to retain and grow small businesses, fill empty storefronts with active and relevant uses, and improve
San Pablo Avenue’s overall appeal and visibility. Many
shared a vision of San Pablo Avenue as a culturally
vibrant, economically inclusive mixed-use district where it is possible to live, work, and shop locally; and
referenced some current and past businesses that reflect their vision for the Specific Plan Area.

This chapter
establishes policies
that respond to these
concerns and
aspirations. It
presents strategies to
retain and grow local
businesses, activate
vacant or
underutilized spaces,
and foster a thriving
commercial
environment that
reflects the diversity of the Specific Plan Area, and that can serve the growing needs of the community as
population increases with the implementation of the
Specific Plan. There is a desire to create a commercial and community environment in which residents can
satisfy their shopping, service, recreational and social needs within a walkable distance of their home. The
policies advance the community’s vision for a more
vibrant business environment and supportive public
realm, including the following objectives:
• Increase business activity by supporting existing
businesses and making it easier for new local
businesses to locate and thrive within the
Specific Plan Area.
• Support commercial vitality and reduce ground-
floor vacancies by encouraging the concentration
of new commercial development within
Designated Nodes.
• Strengthen connections between public and
private spaces by establishing partnerships for
indoor and outdoor events and identifying
collaborative opportunities to fund and maintain
streetscape and public realm improvements.

The topics addressed in this chapter
are interrelated. While this chapter is
focused on strategies for
commercial vitality, many of the
Specific Plan’s economic goals are
also advanced through policies in
other chapters –particularly Chapter
3 Land Use and Chapter 5 Streets –
Transportation and Public Realm. These chapters
address how and where ground floor commercial and
other business uses are encouraged, how storefronts are designed to engage pedestrians, and how San Pablo
Avenue’s physical environment supports a vibrant mixed- use district. Chapter 3 Land Use’s policies, and
implementing standards in the Berkeley Municipal Code,
shape the distribution of commercial activity by
establishing new strategies to focus retail and services at Designated Nodes and allow for flexible uses between
Designated Nodes. Chapter 5 Streets – Transportation
and Public Realm’s policies and standards aim to
improve multimodal accessibility through bus stop and
bicycle improvements, parking management policies,
and the pedestrian experience through wider sidewalks,
pedestrian-scaled lighting, street trees, and other
amenities to make San Pablo Avenue more inviting for
customers, residents, and workers.
“It is our urban center or spine. Be
more for the people that live here.
[We are] missing boutiques,
groceries, and practical things.”
– Community Member
An assessment conducted
as part of the Specific Plan
process indicates about 90
percent of the brick-and-
mortar businesses are
locally owned. Those
establishments continue to
provide a diverse mix of
commercial activities (see
Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Locally-Owned Businesses on San Pablo
Avenue.

Data from Financial Department, City of Berkeley. Active Business License Data and SLA. August, 2023.

Page 399 of 990 ends
Page 723 ends

Chapter 4: Economic Development
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 47
Together, these policies and programs create a
framework to implement the vision of San Pablo Avenue
as a mixed-use district that welcomes everyone—
residents, workers, artists, entrepreneurs, and visitors — and enables a diverse, stable, and essential local
business community that supports community life.

Relevant Policies in Other Chapters
Chapter 3 - Land Use
LU-P.2 Focus Commercial Uses within Designated
Nodes
LU-P.6 Planning and Commercial Use Permit
Streamlining
LU-P.8 Expand Allowed Primary and Temporary Uses
LU-P.9 Establish Ground Floor Form Types to Promote
Pedestrian-Scaled and Flexible Ground Floors

Chapter 5 - Streets
PR-P.2 Sidewalk Incentive
PR-P.3 Improve Street Lighting for the Safety and
Comfort of all Users
PR-P.12 Facilitate Wayfinding and Placemaking
Programs
PR-P.15 Create Side-Street Plazas
PR-P.16 Support Use and Creation of Parklets
PR-P.20 Privately Owned Public Open Spaces

Page 400 of 990 ends
Page 724 ends

Chapter 4: Economic Development
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 48
Interviews with Business Owners
Marcel Pardo Ariza, the Specific Plan’s Municipal Artist-in-Residence, conducted interviews with business owners along San Pablo Avenue. Here are 2 of those conversations:

Shirley Everett-Dicko, Everett & Jones
Hi, Shirley! I’m so excited to be here at Everett and Jones Barbecue. It’s such an iconic place, especially with all the changes happening in the neighborhood. Can you tell us a bit about yourself and your role here? Shirley Everett-Dicko: Absolutely! My name is Shirley Everett-Dicko, and I’m one of the original owners of this location, which opened in 1974. My mom, Dorothy Turner, along with my 7 sisters and brother, helped start it.

This was our second location—the first was in Oakland.

Can you share a little about your mom’s journey into the barbecue business? My mom’s story began on seventh Street in West Oakland, once known as the “Harlem of the West.” In the 1960s, she worked at Jenkins Barbecue, run by Reverend Jenkins, our church pastor. Later, she became the first manager at Flint’s Barbecue. With help from Harry Mott, she opened Everet t and Jones in 1973.

And how did you all choose the name “Everett and Jones”? Everett is my dad’s name, and Jones was my sister’s married name. It’s always been a family affair! Tell us about your famous barbecue sauce.

That’s Mom’s recipe! We started bottling it in 1983 after a customer suggested it, and it’s been a hit ever since.

I’ve heard this place also has ties to the Black Panther movement.

Yes! The East Bay Dragons Motorcycle Club—one of the oldest Black motorcycle clubs in the U.S.—used to provide security for the Black Panther Party. Our first location was next to their clubhouse, so we’ve always shared that community connection.

How have you seen the San Pablo corridor change over the years? It’s changed a lot. There used to be several barbecue restaurants and plenty of foot traffic from university students. Now there are fewer spots, but we’re still holding our ground! For someone visiting for the first time,
what should they order?
Definitely the ribs and links combo—with
potato salad and our homemade sauce.

It’s the best way to experience our
barbecue.

Anything else you’d like people to know?
Just that Everett and Jones has always
been a gathering place. We’re proud to
keep our family legacy and community
spirit alive.

Figure 4.2. Shirley Everett-Dicko and her family at Everett & Jones Located at 1955 San Pablo Ave. Photo by Marcel Pardo Ariza, 2023

Page 401 of 990 ends
Page 725 ends

Chapter 4: Economic Development
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 49
Jaime Alejo, Mi Ranchito Market
Hi, Jaime! We're here at Mi Ranchito Market. Could you tell us a bit about yourself and your role here? Jaime Alejo: Of course! I’m Jaime Alejo, the store manager. I’ve been here for many years and love being part of this family dream that started over 24 years ago. My dad wanted to build something for our family, and now my 4 siblings and I work together to keep it going.

How did it all begin?
It all started with my dad’s dream to create a place where the community could feel at home. In the beginning, we were a small store, but over time we’ve grown. Despite challenges and changes in the neighborhood, we’re still here—always dreaming big and providing good service.

How has the community around the market changed?
It’s changed a lot. Most of our customers used to be Latino, and now there’s a mix of cultures from everywhere.

Sadly, many Latinos have had to leave because of the high cost of living. Most of our current customers are students or new residents. Gentrification has really impacted our community.

How have you adapted to these changes?
The key has been to stay flexible and welcoming. We try to keep a family -friendly environment where everyone feels at home. Many customers tell us they find comfort here, and we love helping them discover products that remind them of their homeland.

What kind of products do you offer?
We carry a wide range of Mexican products—fresh foods, household items, meats, and even some Brazilian and Peruvian goods. Our fresh meat section is one of our biggest draws.

What would you say to someone who’s never visited Mi Ranchito? Come anytime! We’re open from 8 to 8, and there’s always something new to discover. Whether you’re looking for a specific ingredient or just want to chat, you’ll feel welcome here.

What changes would you like to see in Berkeley to support small businesses? I hope the City provides more support and subsidies for small businesses. Gentrification has raised costs, making it hard to compete.

Anything else you’d like to add?
Even though times are tough, we’re
still here thanks to our community’s
support. Every customer matters, and
we hope to keep being a place where
everyone feels at home.

Figure 4.3. Jaime Alejo and his brother at Mi Ranchito Bay Side Market Photo by Marcel Pardo Ariza, 2025

Page 402 of 990 ends
Page 726 ends

Chapter 4: Economic Development
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 50
Economic Development Policies and Programs
Small Business Support
Throughout the Specific Plan engagement process, community members expressed the importance of retaining existing
businesses and called for greater City support to improve conditions for new small businesses.

A key concern raised by business owners, developers, commercial real estate agents, and the City’s Office of Economic Development (OED) staff is the high cost of tenant improvements (TI) required to make existing ground floor retail spaces move-in ready. For both new and existing spaces, the need for infrastructure such as grease ducts, commercial kitchen ventilation systems, and ADA-compliant restrooms poses significant barriers for small business owners, even when lease terms are favorable. In many cases, new commercial spaces enter the market as “cold shell,” meaning they lack not only the necessary infrastructure but also basic finishes such as concrete slab floors, wall finishes, or ceilings. While this provides flexibility for tenants to customize their spaces, it also results in higher TI costs and ultimately, higher rents, which often negate the value of any owner-contribution toward buildout.

To address this issue in future mixed-use development, the Design Standards Document includes ground-floor interior standards. In combination with the economic development and land use policies of this Specific Plan, the goal is to reduce TI cost, shorten start-up periods, and help decrease commercial vacancies.

ED-P.1 Outdoor Business Activation Toolkit
The Specific Plan expands opportunities for existing businesses to activate outdoor space across private property and adjacent public access easements, and public sidewalks, and plazas. Along major roads in the Specific Plan Area, narrow sidewalks and limited on-site space constrain businesses’ ability to provide outdoor seating, merchandise displays, and other amenities to support business and community activity. To overcome these constraints, the Specific Plan seeks to enable businesses to use available space more effectively, strengthening economic vitality and enhancing the pedestrian experience. The following policies and programs function as a flexible toolbox that businesses and the City can apply to expand outdoor activation.

Toolbox:
• Parking Lot Parklets Program: LU-P.8 Expand Allowed Primary and Temporary Uses introduces a program to allow properties with existing businesses to convert existing off-street parking spaces into Private Parklets for outdoor commercial use . Figure 4.4 shows an example of such conversion in Berkeley.
• Sidewalk Use: PR-S.1 Sidewalk Zone Standards allows businesses to extend installations, such as merchandize displays, café, or restaurant seating on sidewalk provided they apply and receive an encroachment permit and meet design, access, time of use, and other standards . • Parklets on Side-Streets: PR-P.16 Support Use and Creation of Parklets reduces or waves the Outdoor Commerce Use Fee for businesses creating and maintaining parklets that satisfy City standards.

Figure 4.4. Vik’s Chaat Parking Lot
In response to the 2020 Pandemic, Vik’s Chaat
in Berkeley converted its parking lot into a
dining area, which remains in use today. Photo
from Vik’s Chaat,vikschaatcafe.com, accessed
April 2025.

Page 403 of 990 ends
← All documents from this meeting